Page 12 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 12
7] THE EVOLUTIONOF DEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE 597
U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of answering the question initially posed-
whether Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes
of the Double Jeopardy Clause-the arguments of the Solicitor General and the
five amici curiae asked whether Puerto Rico is a territory, and hence,
recognizable as a separate sovereign.
Prior to Sanchez Valle, the U.S. Supreme Court expounded in several cases
the legal status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Sanchez Valle, however,
was the first case where a lower court directly presented the argument that
Puerto Rico was a territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress. This
argument drew upon Puerto Rico v. Shell Co.56 In Shell, decided in 1937, the
U.S. Supreme Court relied on Grafton v. United States,51 where the Court held
tbat the Philippines was a territory, and consequently devoid of sovereignty for
purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.58 Shell recognized that Puerto Rico
had sorne measure of autonomy, but reasoned that the risk of double jeopardy
did not exist.59 "Both the territorial and federal laws and the courts," the Court
stated, "whether exercising federal or local jurisdiction, are creations emanating
from the same sovereignty."6º Accordingly, "[p]rosecution under one of the
laws in the appropriate court necessarily bars a prosecution under the other law
in another court."61 Relying on Shell, the P.R. Supreme Court concluded that
Puerto Rico adopting its own constitution by delegation from Congress did not
confer sovereignty to Puerto Rico, even though it superseded most of the
organic law that established the Puerto Rican territorial government.62 Having
concluded that Puerto Rico remained a territory, the P.R. Supreme Court held
that Shell and Grafton continued to resolve the double jeopardy question.63
Despite the presence of its own constitution, the P.R. Supreme Court
determined that the power of the Puerto Rican government to prosecute
criminals emanates from the U.S. government, not from its own sovereignty."
The respondent, the Solicitor General' s brief, and the other amici curiae also
pointed to Grafton and Shell as precedents for the proposition that Puerto Rico
lacked separate sovereignty.65 The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not
follow this path, and instead adopted the Commonwealth' s position regarding
56. 302 U.S. 253 (1937).
57. 206 u.s. 333 (1907).
58. See id. 354-55 (suggesting Philippines lacked sovereignty dueto territory status).
59. See Shell, 302 U.S. at 264 (concluding no danger of "double punishment" exists with "legislative
duplicatioo").
60. See id. (discussing minimal risk of double jeopardy).
61. See id. (explaining differences between territorial and federal Jaws).
62. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 192 P.R. Dec. 594, 644-45 (2015) (holding sovereignty not
traosferred when Congress affirmed Puerto Rican constitution).
63. See id. ar 646-47 (determining Shell and Grafton"resolved" this question).
64. See id. at 644 (tracing roots of Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power).
65. See Brief for tbe United States as Amicus Curiae Supponing Respondents, supra note 49, at •7
(referenciog Shell and Graftony; see a/so Brief of Respondents, supra note 48, at *3-4 (relying on Shel/ and
Grafton to argue dual sovereignty exception inapplicable).
U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of answering the question initially posed-
whether Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes
of the Double Jeopardy Clause-the arguments of the Solicitor General and the
five amici curiae asked whether Puerto Rico is a territory, and hence,
recognizable as a separate sovereign.
Prior to Sanchez Valle, the U.S. Supreme Court expounded in several cases
the legal status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Sanchez Valle, however,
was the first case where a lower court directly presented the argument that
Puerto Rico was a territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress. This
argument drew upon Puerto Rico v. Shell Co.56 In Shell, decided in 1937, the
U.S. Supreme Court relied on Grafton v. United States,51 where the Court held
tbat the Philippines was a territory, and consequently devoid of sovereignty for
purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.58 Shell recognized that Puerto Rico
had sorne measure of autonomy, but reasoned that the risk of double jeopardy
did not exist.59 "Both the territorial and federal laws and the courts," the Court
stated, "whether exercising federal or local jurisdiction, are creations emanating
from the same sovereignty."6º Accordingly, "[p]rosecution under one of the
laws in the appropriate court necessarily bars a prosecution under the other law
in another court."61 Relying on Shell, the P.R. Supreme Court concluded that
Puerto Rico adopting its own constitution by delegation from Congress did not
confer sovereignty to Puerto Rico, even though it superseded most of the
organic law that established the Puerto Rican territorial government.62 Having
concluded that Puerto Rico remained a territory, the P.R. Supreme Court held
that Shell and Grafton continued to resolve the double jeopardy question.63
Despite the presence of its own constitution, the P.R. Supreme Court
determined that the power of the Puerto Rican government to prosecute
criminals emanates from the U.S. government, not from its own sovereignty."
The respondent, the Solicitor General' s brief, and the other amici curiae also
pointed to Grafton and Shell as precedents for the proposition that Puerto Rico
lacked separate sovereignty.65 The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not
follow this path, and instead adopted the Commonwealth' s position regarding
56. 302 U.S. 253 (1937).
57. 206 u.s. 333 (1907).
58. See id. 354-55 (suggesting Philippines lacked sovereignty dueto territory status).
59. See Shell, 302 U.S. at 264 (concluding no danger of "double punishment" exists with "legislative
duplicatioo").
60. See id. (discussing minimal risk of double jeopardy).
61. See id. (explaining differences between territorial and federal Jaws).
62. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 192 P.R. Dec. 594, 644-45 (2015) (holding sovereignty not
traosferred when Congress affirmed Puerto Rican constitution).
63. See id. ar 646-47 (determining Shell and Grafton"resolved" this question).
64. See id. at 644 (tracing roots of Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power).
65. See Brief for tbe United States as Amicus Curiae Supponing Respondents, supra note 49, at •7
(referenciog Shell and Graftony; see a/so Brief of Respondents, supra note 48, at *3-4 (relying on Shel/ and
Grafton to argue dual sovereignty exception inapplicable).
