Ada Conde Vidal v. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla; Order

8/19/2019 Ada Conde Vidal v. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla; Order

1/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ADA CONDE VI DAL, ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

ALEJ ANDRO GARCI A- PADI LLA, ET AL. ,

Def endant s.

CI VI L NO. 14- 1253 ( PG)

OPINION AND ORDER

For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and

necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth,

fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than

that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of thefamily, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of

one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure

foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the

best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all

beneficent progress in social and political improvement.1

I.

BACKGROUND

The i nst ant act i on was commenced al most t wo year s ago by t he

pl ai nt i f f s - a gr oup of i ndi vi dual s and a l esbi an, gay, bi sexual and

t r ansgender nonpr of i t advocacy organi zat i on who have chal l enged t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co’ s codi f i cat i on ofopposi t e- sex mar r i age under Ar t i cl e 68 of t he Puer t o Ri co Ci vi l Code

( “Ar t i c l e 68”). 2 See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 31, § 221. The pl ai nt i f f s seek

decl ar at or y and i nj uncti ve r el i ef f or vi ol at i on of t hei r r i ght s under t he

Due Process Cl ause and t he Equal Prot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St ates Const i t ut i on. Upon t he def endant s’ mot i on

t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Procedur e 12( b) ( 6) , see Docket No.

31, on Oct ober 21, 2014, t he cour t di smi ssed t he pl ai nt i f f s’ cl ai ms wi t h

pr ej udi ce f or f ai l ur e t o pr esent a subst ant i al f eder al quest i on. See

1 Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 ( 1885) .2 The pl ai nt i f f s i ncl ude t wo same- sex coupl es who seek the ri ght t o marr y i n

Puert o Ri co; t hr ee- same sex coupl es who are val i dl y mar r i ed under t he l aws ofMassachuset t s, New Yor k, and Canada, r espect i vel y, and who wi sh to have t hei r mar r i agesr ecogni zed i n t he i sl and; and the LGBT advocacy group Puer t o Ri co Para Tod@s. See DocketNo. 7. For a detai l ed di scussi on of each of t he part i es’ argument s at t he di smi ssalst age of t he pr oceedi ngs, t he cour t r ef ers t o that i ncl uded at Docket No. 57.

Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 69 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 10


2/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 2

Docket No. 57 at page 11. J udgment was ent ered on t hat same dat e. See

Docket No. 58. An appeal ensued. See Docket No. 59.

Whi l e t he appeal was pendi ng, t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded Ober gef el l

v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct . 2584 ( 2015) , r ul i ng on t he i ssue of same- sex

marr i age under t he Const i t ut i on. There, t he Cour t concl uded t hat under

t he Due Process and Equal Prot ect i on Cl auses of t he Four t eenth Amendment

same- sex coupl es may not be depr i ved of t he f undament al r i ght t o marr y.

See i d. at 2604- 2605. Thus, t he marr i age l aws of t he St ates of Mi chi gan,

Kent ucky, Ohi o, and Tennessee chal l enged by t he pet i t i oners i n t he

consol i dat ed cases r evi ewed by t he Cour t wer e hel d i nval i d. See i d. at

2605.

On J ul y 8, 2015, t wel ve days af t er t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s l andmark

r ul i ng, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t vacat ed t hi s cour t ’ s j udgment and r emanded t he

case “f or f ur t her consi der at i on i n l i ght of Ober gef el l v. Hodges. ” SeeDocket No. 62 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n doi ng so, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t

expr essed t hat i t “agr ee[ s] wi t h t he par t i es’ j oi nt posi t i on t hat t he ban

i s unconst i t ut i onal . ” I d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) .

On J ul y 17, 2015, t he par t i es f i l ed a “J oi nt Mot i on f or Ent r y of

J udgment , ” wherei n t hey r equest a deter mi nat i on t hat Ar t i cl e 68, and any

ot her Puer t o Ri co l aw t hat ( i ) pr ohi bi t s same- sex mar r i age; ( i i ) deni es

same- sex coupl es t he r i ght s and pr i vi l eges af f or ded t o opposi t e- sex

coupl es, and ( i i i ) r ef uses t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages val i dl yper f or med under t he l aws of anot her j ur i sdi ct i on, vi ol at e t he Four t eent h

Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St ates. See Docket Nos. 64

and 64- 1. The par t i es al so seek i nj unct i ve rel i ef agai nst t he enf or cement

of Ar t i cl e 68 and any ot her l aw denyi ng same- sex coupl es t he r i ght t o

mar r y. The rel i ef now sought by t he par t i es i s i nt ended “t o benef i t al l

LGBT peopl e and same- sex coupl es i n Puer t o Ri co. . . . ” 3 See i d. at pages

2- 3. For t he reasons set f or t h bel ow, t he cour t DENIES t he par t i es’ j oi nt

mot i on.

3 The par t i es f ur t her r equest a r ul i ng r egar di ng t he bi ndi ng ef f ect of t he cour t ’ sdi sposi t i on f or pur poses of i ssue and cl ai m pr ecl usi on. See i d. For t he r easons t hatf ol l ow, t he cour t does not r each t he r equest.



3/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 3

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Obergefell decision

The Supreme Court ’ s r ul i ng i n Obergef el l seems t o t ouch di r ect l y

upon t he i ssue at t he hear t of t hi s l i t i gat i on, t o wi t , whet her Puer t o

Ri co’ s mar r i age ban f ound i n Ar t i cl e 68 vi ol at es t he Four t eent hAmendment . See U. S. Const . amend. XI V, § 1.

I n t he consol i dated cases on r evi ew bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t , t he

pet i t i oner s, f our t een same- sex coupl es and t wo men whose same- sex

part ner s are deceased, chal l enged t he marr i age l aws of t he St at es of

Mi chi gan, Kent ucky, Ohi o and Tennessee t hat def i ned marr i age as a uni on

bet ween one man and one woman. See Ober gef el l , 135 S. Ct . at 2593. The

f i r st i ssue deci ded by the Cour t was “whet her t he Const i t ut i on pr ot ect s

t he r i ght of same- sex coupl es t o mar r y. ” I d. at 2606. Af t er i dent i f yi ng

t he hi st or i cal , cul t ur al and l egal pr i nci pl es and t r adi t i ons t hat have

shaped t he r i ght t o marr y as a f undament al one under t he Const i t ut i on,

t he Cour t concl uded t hat under t he Due Process and Equal Protect i on

Cl auses of t he Four t eent h Amendment same- sex coupl es may not be depr i ved

of t hat r i ght . See i d. at 2604- 2605. The Cour t al so hel d t hat “Baker v.

Nel son must be and now i s over r ul ed, and the State laws challenged by

Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they

exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and

conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Id. at 2605 ( emphasi s added) .

The Obergef el l cases al so “present [ ed] t he quest i on of whether t he

Const i t ut i on r equi r es St at es t o r ecogni ze same- sex mar r i ages val i dl y

per f or med out of St at e. ” I d. at 2607. I n i t s anal ysi s, t he Cour t

i ndi cat ed t hat t he “r ecogni t i on bans” on val i d same- sex marr i ages

per f or med i n ot her St at es i nf l i ct ed subst ant i al har m on same- sex coupl es

and coul d cont i nue t o cause har dshi ps i n cer t ai n event s, such as a

spouse’ s hospi t al i zat i on, across stat e l i nes. See i d. The Cour t al so

not ed t he di st r essi ng compl i cat i ons such bans cr eated i n t he l aw ofdomest i c r el at i ons. See i d. These reasons l ed t o the f ol l owi ng

concl usi on:

The Court, in this decision, holds that same-sex couples may

exercise this fundamental right in all States. It follows that

the Court must also hold--and it now does hold--that there is

no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful



4/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 4

same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of

its same-sex character.

I d. at 2607- 2608 ( emphasi s added) .

As f or ewar ned i n t hi s cour t ’ s opi ni on and or der f r om Oct ober 21,

2014, see Docket No. 57, l ower cour t s ar e bound by t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s

deci si ons “‘ unt i l such t i me as t he Cour t i nf or ms [ t hem] t hat [ t hey] ar e

not . ’ ” Hi cks v. Mi r anda, 422 U. S. 332, 344 ( 1975) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, t hi s cour t r eads t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s

deci si on i n Ober gef el l as one i ncor por at i ng t he f undament al r i ght t o

same- sex marr i age i n al l Stat es t hrough t he Fourt eenth Amendment and,

consequent l y, st r i ki ng down t he mar r i age and recogni t i on bans codi f i ed i n

t he l aws of f our St at es i n vi ol at i on of t he Due Process and Equal

Prot ect i on Cl auses of t hat Amendment . 4 However , Ober gef el l di d not

i ncor por at e the f undament al r i ght at i ssue t o Puer t o Ri co t hr ough t he

Four t eent h Amendment , nor di d i t i nval i dat e Ar t i cl e 68. And i t i s not

wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t hi s cour t t o decl ar e, as t he par t i es ask, t hat

t he Four t eenth Amendment guarant ees same- sex coupl es i n Puer t o Ri co t he

r i ght t o mar r y. 5

I n i nt er pr et i ng Ober gef el l , t hi s cour t i s bound by an el ement ar y

pr i nci pl e of f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under whi ch “[ a] j udgment or decree

among the part i es t o a l awsui t r esol ves i ssues among t hem, but i t does

not concl ude the r i ght of st r anger s t o those pr oceedi ngs. ” Mar t i ns v.

Wi l ki s, 490 U. S. 755, 762 ( 1989) , superseded by statute, Ci vi l Ri ght s Act

of 1991, Pub. L. 102- 166, 105 St at . 1071; see al so Dor an v. Sal em I nn,

I nc. , 422 U. S. 922, 931 ( 1975) ( not i ng t hat “nei t her decl ar at or y nor

i nj unct i ve r el i ef can di r ect l y i nt er f er e wi t h enf or cement of cont est ed

st at ut es or or di nances except wi t h r espect t o t he par t i cul ar

4 As not ed by the Supr eme Cour t , “[ t ] hese cases [ came] f r om Mi chi gan, Kent ucky,Ohi o, and Tennessee. ” Ober gef el l , 135 S. Ct . at 2593 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) .

5 J ust hour s af t er t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n Ober gef el l , t he Governor ofPuert o Ri co, Hon. Al ej andr o Gar ci a Padi l l a, si gned Execut i ve Or der OE- 2015- 21, r equi r i ngsever al government agenci es t o become compl i ant wi t h the r ul i ng and t ake al l measur esnecessary f or t he i ssuance of marr i age l i censes to same- sex coupl es. Subsequent l y,var i ous member s of t he Puer t o Ri co Legi sl atur e f i l ed sui t before t he Puert o Ri co Cour t ofFi r st I nst ance, San J uan Par t , chal l engi ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Gover nor ’ sact i ons. See Mar i a M. Char boni er et al . v. Hon. Al ej andr o Gar ci a Padi l l a, et al . ( casenumber not ver i f i ed) . As t he pl ai nt i f f s see i t , t he f undament al r i ght t o marr y betweensame- sex coupl es has not been appl i ed agai nst t he Government of Puer t o Ri co t hrough t heDue Process Cl ause of t he Four t eenth Amendment . The pl ai nti f f s al so r ai se cl ai ms of asepar at i on of power s vi ol at i on by the Fi r st Execut i ve.



5/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 5

pl ai nt i f f s. . . . ”) . Thi s suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat Ober gef el l does not

di r ect l y i nval i dat e Ar t i cl e 68 or r esol ves t he i ssues pr esent ed bef or e

t hi s cour t . 6

At t hi s j unct ur e, t he cour t ’ s j ob i s t o det er mi ne t he ext ent , i f

any, t o whi ch Obergef el l i mpact s t he Puer t o Ri co marr i age l aws. Thi s

t ask, i n t ur n, r equi r es exami ni ng t wo doct r i nes el abor ated by t he Supr eme

Cour t t hat t ouch di r ect l y upon t he i ncor por at i on of cer t ai n f undament al

r i ght s, such as t he r i ght t o mar r y, t o t he St at es and Puer t o Ri co t hr ough

t he Four t eent h Amendment .

B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation

At t he t i me of i t s adopt i on i n 1871, t he Bi l l of Ri ght s –and,

par t i cul ar l y, t he i ndi vi dual l i ber t i es secur ed wi t hi n i t – di d not appl y

agai nst t he St at es. See Bar r on ex r el . Ti er nan v. Bal t i mor e, 32 U. S. 243,250 ( 1833) ( not i ng that t he amendment s f ound i n the Bi l l of Ri ght s

“cont ai n no expr essi on i ndi cat i ng an i nt ent i on t o appl y t hem t o the St at e

government s”) ; Lessee of Li vi ngst on v. Moor e, 32 U. S. 469, 551- 552

( 1833) ( same) . Never t hel ess, i n t he af t er mat h of t he Ci vi l War , t he

Four t eent h Amendment t o the Const i t ut i on was adopt ed t o pr otect cer t ai n

i ndi vi dual r i ght s f r om i nt er f er ence by t he St at es. 7 And t her eaf t er , t he

Supreme Cour t began usi ng t hat Amendment ’ s Due Pr ocess Cl ause t o

“i ncor por at e” a number of t he i ndi vi dual l i ber t i es f ound i n t he f i r st t enAmendment s agai nst t he St ates, “i ni t i at i ng what has been cal l ed a pr ocess

of ‘ sel ect i ve i ncor por at i on, ’ i . e. t he Cour t began t o hol d t hat t he Due

Pr ocess Cl ause f ul l y i ncor por at es par t i cul ar r i ght s cont ai ned i n t he

6 I t i s wor t h not i ng t he deci si ons of ot her si st er cour t s di scussi ng t he i mpact ofObergef el l wi t h r espect t o t he marr i age l aws of other St ates pr ohi bi t i ng t he i ssuance ofsame- sex marr i age l i censes. See Waters v. Ri cket t s, 798 F. 3d 682, 685 ( 8t h Ci r .2015) ( not i ng t hat “[ t ] he [Ober gef el l ] Cour t i nval i dat ed l aws i n Mi chi gan, Kent ucky, Ohi o,and Tennessee – not Nebr aska”) ; J erni gan v. Cr ane, 796 F. 3d 976, 979 ( 8t h Ci r . 2015) ( “notAr kansas”) ; Rosenbr ahn v. Daugaar d, 799 F. 3d 918, 922 ( 8t h Ci r . 2015) ( “not Sout hDakot a”) ; see al so Mar i e v. Mosi er , Case No. 14- cv- 02518- DDC- TJ J , 2015 WL 4724389, at *14( D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2015) ( noti ng t hat “[ w] hi l e Obergefell i s cl ear l y cont r ol l i ng Supr emeCour t pr ecedent , i t di d not di r ect l y st r i ke down the pr ovi si ons of t he KansasConst i t ut i on and stat ut es t hat ban i ssuance of same- sex marr i age l i censes and pr ohi bi tt he r ecogni t i on of same- sex marr i ages ent ered i nt o i n Kansas and el sewhere. ”) ( i nt ernalquot at i ons omi t t ed) .

7 The Fourt eenth Amendment pr ovi des, i n per t i nent part , t hat “[ n] o St ateshal l . . . depr i ve any per son of l i f e, l i ber t y, or pr oper t y, wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw; nordeny t o any per son wi t hi n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on t he equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aws. ” U. S. Const .amend. XI V, § 1.



6/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 6

f i r st [ t en] Amendment s. ” McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago, I I I . , 561 U. S. 742,

763 ( 2010) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( l i st i ng cases).

I n t he cases deci ded dur i ng t hi s era, t he Cour t f ashi oned t he

boundar i es of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause by expr essl y i ncor por at i ng t hose

r i ght s consi dered f undament al t o a scheme of ordered l i ber t y and syst em

of j ust i ce. See i d. , 561 U. S. at 760- 764; see al so Pal ko v. Connect i cut ,

302 U. S. 319 ( 1937) ( i ndi cat i ng t hat due pr ocess prot ect s t hose r i ght s

t hat are “t he ver y essence of a scheme of or der ed l i bert y”) ; Duncan v.

Loui si ana, 391 U. S. 145, 148 (1968) ( r ef er r i ng to t hose “f undament al

pr i nci pl es of l i ber t y and j ust i ce whi ch l i e at t he base of al l our ci vi l

and pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons”) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Today, most of

t he r i ght s f ound i n t he f i r st t en Amendment s have been i ncorporat ed. 8

Not wi t hst andi ng, t he i ncor por at i on of f undament al r i ght s t o Puer t o

Ri co t hr ough the Four t eent h Amendment , unl i ke the St at es, i s notaut omat i c. See Mor a v. Tor r es, 113 F. Supp. 309, 319 ( D. P. R. 1953) , af f ’ d

sub. nom. , Mor a v. Mej i as, 206 F. 2d 377 ( 1st Ci r . 1953) ( hol di ng t hat t he

Four t eent h Amendment i s not appl i cabl e to Puer t o Ri co i nsof ar as Puert o

Ri co i s not a f eder at ed st at e wi t hi n t he ter ms of sai d

Amendment ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thus, f or t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he

cour t concl udes t hat absent an expr ess deci si on f r om t he Supr eme Cour t of

t he Uni t ed St ates, t he Supr eme Cour t of Puert o Ri co, Congr ess or t he

8 Wi t h r espect t o t he Fi r st Amendment , see Ever son v. Boar d of Ed. of Ewi ng, 330U. S. 1 ( 1947) ( Est abl i shment Cl ause) ; Cant wel l v. Connect i cut , 310 U. S. 296 ( 1940) ( FreeExer ci se Cl ause) ; De J onge v. Or egon, 299 U. S. 353 (1937) ( f r eedom of assembl y) ; Gi t l ow v.New Yor k, 268 U. S. 652 (1925) ( f r ee speech) ; Near v. Mi nnesot a ex r el . Ol son, 283 U. S. 697( 1931) ( f r eedom of t he pr ess) .

As t o t he Second Amendment ’ s r i ght t o bear arms, see McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago,561 U. S. at 742.

Wi t h respect t o the Four t h Amendment , see Agui l ar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108( 1964) ( war r ant r equi r ement ) ; Mapp v. Ohi o, 367 U. S. 643 (1961) ( excl usi onar y r ul e); Wol fv. Col orado, 338 U. S. 25 ( 1949) ( f r eedom f r om unr easonabl e searches and sei zures) .

Wi t h respect t o t he Fi f t h Amendment , see Bent on v. Maryl and, 395 U. S. 784

( 1969) ( Doubl e J eopardy Cl ause) ; Mal l oy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964) ( pr i vi l ege agai nstsel f - i ncri mi nat i on) ; Chi cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chi cago, 166 U. S. 22 ( 1897) ( J ustCompensat i on Cl ause) .

Wi t h respect t o t he Si xt h Amendment , see Duncan , 391 U. S. 145 ( t r i al by j ur y i ncr i mi nal cases) ; Washi ngt on v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967) ( compul sory pr ocess) ; Kl opf er v.Nort h Carol i na, 386 U. S. 213 ( 1967) ( speedy tr i al ) ; Poi nt er v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400( 1965) ( Conf r ont ati on Cl ause); Gi deon v. Wai nwr i ght , 372 U. S. 335 (1963) ( assi st ance ofcounsel ) ; I n r e Ol i ver , 333 U. S. 257 ( 1948) ( r i ght t o a publ i c tr i al ) .

Wi t h respect t o t he Ei ghth Amendment , see Robi nson v. Cal i f orni a, 370 U. S. 660( 1962) ( Cr uel And Unusual Puni shment s Cl ause) ; Schi l b v. Kuebel , 404 U. S. 357( 1971) ( Excessi ve Bai l Cl ause) .



7/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 7

Puer t o Ri co Legi sl at ur e, t he f undament al r i ght cl ai med by the pl ai nt i f f s

i n t hi s case has not been i ncor por at ed t o Puer t o Ri co.

C. Now, does the Constitution follow the flag? The Doctrine of

Territorial Incorporation

And the determination of what particular provision of the

Constitution is applicable, generally speaking, in all cases,

involves an inquiry into the situation of the territory and

its relations to the United States.9

At t he dawn of t he 20t h cent ur y, t he Supr eme Cour t r endered a ser i es

of deci si ons l at er known as t he I nsul ar Cases, 10 t hat est abl i shed “a

vi t al di st i nct i on bet ween i ncor por at ed and uni ncor por at ed terr i t or i es

wi t h t he second cat egory descr i bi ng possessi ons of t he Uni t ed St at es not

necessar i l y t hought of as f ut ur e St at es. ” U. S. v. Lebr on_Cacer es,

Cr i mi nal No. 15- 279 (PAD) , 2016 WL 204447, at *6 ( D. P. R. J an. 14,2016) . 11 Puer t o Ri co ul t i mat el y f el l i nt o t he second cat egor y. I ndeed,

t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat wi t h t he r at i f i cat i on of t he Tr eat y of

Par i s, “t he i sl and became t er r i t or y of t he Uni t ed St at es, al t hough not an

or gani zed t er r i t or y i n t he t echni cal sense of t he wor d. ” De Li ma v.

Bi dwel l , 182 U. S. at 196.

“The I nsul ar Cases al l owed t he Cour t t o addr ess whether t he

Const i t ut i on, by i t s own f or ce, appl i es i n any terr i t or y that i s not a

St at e. ” Boumedi ene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 726, 756 ( 2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The consi derat i ons i nher ent i n t he Supreme Court ’ s posi t i on, one t hat

9 Downes v. Bi dwel l , 182 U. S. 244, 293 ( 1901) ( Whi t e, J . , concur r i ng) ( questi oni ngwhet her t he Ci t i zenshi p Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment nat ur al l y and i nexorabl yext ends to acqui r ed t er r i t or i es) .

10 See Huus v. N. Y. & Por t o Ri co S. S. Co. , 182 U. S. 392 ( 1901) ( hol di ng t hat avessel engaged i n t r ade between the i sl and and New Yor k engaged i n coast al , and notf orei gn t r ade) ; Downes v. Bi dwel l , 182 U. S. 244 ( hol di ng t hat Puer t o Ri co di d not becomea par t of t he Uni t ed St at es wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 8 of t heConst i t ut i on) ; Ar mst r ong v. Uni t ed St at es, 182 U. S. 243 ( 1901) ( hol di ng t hat t he tar i f f si mposed on goods expor t ed f r om t he mai nl and t o Puer t o Ri co were i nval i d af t er t her at i f i cat i on of t he Tr eat y of Par i s) ; Dool ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 182 U. S. 222( 1901) ( hol di ng t hat t he ri ght of t he pr esi dent t o exact dut i es on i mpor t s f r om Puer t oRi co i nt o t he mai nl and ceased af t er t he r at i f i cat i on of t he Tr eat y of Par i s) ; Goet ze v.Uni t ed St ates, 182 U. S. 221 ( 1901) ( hol di ng t hat Puert o Ri co and Hawai i were not f orei gncount r i es wi t hi n the meani ng of t he U. S. t ar i f f l aws) ; De Li ma v. Bi dwel l , 182 U. S. 1( 1901) ( hol di ng t hat at t he ti mes t he dut i es chal l enged by the pl ai nt i f f wer e l evi ed,Puer t o Ri co was not a f or ei gn count r y for pur poses of t he t ar i f f l aws, but a t er r i t or y oft he Uni t ed St at es) .

11 For a det ai l ed anal ysi s of t he rel ati onshi p between t he Uni t ed St ates and Puer t oRi co t hr ough t he doctr i ne of t er r i t or i al i ncor por at i on, as wel l as the j udi ci aldevel opment s r egardi ng t he appl i cat i on of vari ous pr ovi si ons of t he Federal Const i t ut i oni n Puer t o Ri co, t he cour t r ef er s t o that i ncl uded i n t he case of U. S. v. Lebr on Cacer es,2016 WL 204447.



8/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 8

vi ews t he Const i t ut i on as havi ng an i ndependent f or ce i n noncont i guous

t er r i t or i es such as Puer t o Ri co, r esul t ed i n t he doctr i ne of t er r i t or i al

i ncor por at i on. See i d. at page 757. Under t hi s doct r i ne, “t he

Const i t ut i on appl i es i n f ul l i n i ncor por at ed Ter r i t or i es sur el y dest i ned

f or st at ehood but onl y i n par t i n uni ncor por at ed Ter r i t or i es. ” I d.

( ci t i ng Dor r v. Uni t ed St at es, 195 U. S. 138 ( 1904) ; 12 Downes, 182 U. S. at

293 ( Whi t e, J . , concur r i ng) ) .

Even af t er t he enactment of t he Foraker Act , 31 St at . 77

( 1900) ( codi f i ed at 11 U. S. C. §§ 1, 11) , pr ovi di ng f or an el ect ed

l egi sl atur e, and a governor and supr eme cour t appoi nt ed by t he Pr esi dent

of t he Uni t ed St at es, and t he J ones Act , 39 St at . 951 ( 1917) ( codi f i ed at

48 U. S. C. § 737) , whi ch gr ant ed st at ut or y Uni t ed St at es ci t i zenshi p t o

t he peopl e of Puert o Ri co and pr ovi ded f or an enhanced, bi cameral

l egi sl at ur e, Puer t o Ri co r emai ned an uni ncor por at ed t er r i t or y of t heUni t ed St at es t o whi ch t he Bi l l of Ri ght s of t he Const i t ut i on di d not

appl y ex propio vigore. 13 See Bal zac v. Por t o Ri co, 258 U. S. 298, 304

( 1922) ( r eaf f i r mi ng t he doctr i ne of t er r i t or i al i ncor por at i on) ; see al so

Rei d v. Cover t , 354 U. S. 1, 74 ( 1957) ( Har l an, J . , concur r i ng) ( “The

pr oposi t i on i s, of cour se, not t hat t he Const i t ut i on does not appl y

over seas, but t hat t her e ar e pr ovi si ons i n t he Const i t ut i on whi ch do not

necessar i l y appl y i n ever y f or ei gn pl ace. ”) .

Not wi t hst andi ng t he i nt ense pol i t i cal , j udi ci al and academi c debat et he i sl and’ s t er r i t or i al st at us has gener at ed over t he year s, t he f act i s

t hat , t o dat e, Puer t o Ri co r emai ns an uni ncor por at ed t er r i t or y subj ect t o

t he pl enar y power s of Congr ess over t he i sl and under t he Ter r i t or i al

Cl ause. 14 Mor e i mpor t ant l y, j ur i spr udence, t r adi t i on and l ogi c t each us

12 I n Dor r , t he Cour t hel d t hat t er r i t or i es ceded by tr eat y to t he Uni t ed St at esand not yet i ncor por at ed by Congr ess are subj ect t o Congr essi onal t er r i t or i al aut hor i t yand “t o such const i t ut i onal r est r i ct i ons upon t he powers of t hat body t hat are appl i cabl et o t he si t uat i on. ”

13

The same concl usi on i s r eached wi t h respect t o Publ i c Law 600, 64 St at . 319( codi f i ed at 48 U. S. C. § 731b et seq. ) , enacted by Congr ess i n 1950, and whi ch pr ovi dedf eder al st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on f or t he ci t i zens of Puer t o Ri co t o wr i t e t hei r ownconst i t ut i on, subj ect t o congr essi onal appr oval . See Popul ar Democr ati c Part y v. Com. ofPuert o Ri co, 24 F. Supp. 2d 184, 194 ( D. P. R. 1998) .

14 I n decl i ni ng t o i nt erpr et a f ederal bankr upt cy st atute t o avoi d Tent h Amendmentconcer ns, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t r ecent l y i ndi cat ed t hat “[ t ] he l i mi t s of t he Tent h Amendmentdo not appl y t o Puert o Ri co, ‘ which is constitutionally a territory, ’ Uni t ed St at es v.Lopez Andi no, 831 F. 3d 1164, 1172 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( Torr uel l a, J . , concur r i ng) , becausePuert o Ri co’ s powers ar e not t hose r eser ved t o t he St ates, but t hose speci f i cal l y gr ant edt o i t by Congr ess under i t s const i t ut i on. ” Frankl i n Cal i f or ni a Tax- Free Tr ust v. Puer t oRi co, 805 F. 3d 322, 344- 345 (1st Ci r . 2015) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t ati on omi t t ed) .



9/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 9

t hat Puer t o Ri co i s not t r eat ed as t he f unct i onal equi val ent of a St at e

f or pur poses of t he Four t eenth Amendment . As expl ai ned by t he Supreme

Cour t , “not i ng t he i nher ent pr acti cal di f f i cul t i es of enf or ci ng al l

const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons ‘ al ways and ever ywher e, ’ t he Cour t devi sed i n

t he I nsul ar Cases a doct r i ne t hat al l owed i t t o use i t s power spar i ngl y

and wher e i t woul d be most needed. ” Boumedi ne, 553 U. S. at 758 ( i nt ernal

ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

I t i s i n l i ght of t he par t i cul ar condi t i on of Puer t o Ri co i n

r el at i on t o t he Feder al Const i t ut i on, wi t h due consi der at i on of t he

under l yi ng cul t ur al , soci al and pol i t i cal cur r ent s t hat have shaped over

f i ve cent ur i es of Puer t o Ri can hi st or y, t hat t he cour t exami nes t he

ef f ect of Ober gef el l i n t he i nst ant case. The cour t ’ s anal ysi s,

t her ef or e, does not end wi t h t he i ncor por at i on of t he f undament al r i ght

t o same- sex marr i age i n t he St ates. General l y, t he quest i on of whet her aconst i t ut i onal guar ant ee appl i es t o Puer t o Ri co i s subj ect t o

determi nat i on by Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates, See Tor r es v. Com.

of Puer t o Ri co, 442 U. S. 456, 478 ( 1979) , i n t he exer ci se of i t s

aut hor i t y “t o say what t he l aw i s. ” See Marbur y v. Madi son, 5 U. S. 137,

177 ( 1803) . Thus, t hi s cour t bel i eves t hat t he ri ght t o same- sex mar r i age

i n Puer t o Ri co r equi r es: (a) f ur t her j udi ci al expr essi on by t he U. S.

Supr eme Cour t ; or (b) t he Supr eme Cour t of Puert o Ri co, see e. g. Puebl o

v. Duart e, 109 D. P. R. 59 (1980) ( f ol l owi ng Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113( 1973) and decl ar i ng a woman’ s r i ght t o have an abor t i on as par t of t he

f undament al r i ght t o pr i vacy guarant eed under t he Four t eent h Amendment ) ;

(c) i ncor por at i on t hr ough l egi sl at i on enact ed by Congr ess, i n t he

exer ci se of t he power s conf er r ed by t he Ter r i t or i al Cl ause, see Const .

amend. Ar t . I V, § 3; or (d) by vi r t ue of any act or s t at ut e adopt ed by

t he Puer t o Ri co Legi sl at ur e that amends or r epeal s Ar t i cl e 68. 15

III. CONCLUSION

A pr act i cal and t heor et i cal anal ysi s of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s opi ni oni n Ober gef el l r eveal s t he i nher ent conf l i ct s bet ween t he pr i nci pl es of

l i ber t y and equal i t y and t he pr ecept s of t he democr at i c pr ocess

est abl i shed i n t he Const i t ut i on, consi der at i ons t hat ul t i mat el y l ed a

maj or i t y of t he Nat i on’ s hi ghest cour t t o decl ar e same- sex mar r i age a

15 See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 31, § 5.



10/10

Ci vi l No. 14- 1253 ( PG) Page 10

f undament al r i ght as a mat t er of const i t ut i onal l aw. See Ober gef el l , 135

S. Ct . at 2605. A t hor ough r eci t at i on of t he hi st or i cal , pol i t i cal and

cul t ur al backgr ounds agai nst whi ch t he l egal quest i on of same- sex

mar r i age ar ose, event ual l y di vi di ng t he St at es on t he i ssue, was f ol l owed

by t he unequi vocal asser t i on t hat t he f undament al l i ber t i es cent r al t o

t he l i t i gat i on st emmed f r om, and wer e pr ot ect ed by t he Four t eent h

Amendment . See i d. at 2597. Under t hat Amendment , concl uded the Supr eme

Cour t , same- sex coupl es are guarant eed t he r i ght t o marr y and t o have

t hei r mar r i ages recogni zed i n al l St at es. One mi ght be t empt ed t o assume

t hat t he const ant r ef er ence made t o the “St at es” i n Ober gef el l i ncl udes

t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co. Yet , i t i s not t he rol e of t hi s cour t t o

vent ur e i nt o such an i nt er pr et at i on.

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, t he cour t concl udes t hat t he f undament al

r i ght t o mar r y, as r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Obergef el l , has notbeen i ncor por at ed t o t he j ur i di cal r eal i t y of Puer t o Ri co. Thus, t he

cour t decl i nes t o hol d t hat t he mar r i age ban codi f i ed i n Ar t i cl e 68 of

t he Ci vi l Code vi ol at es t he Due Pr ocess and the Equal Prot ect i on Cl auses

of t he Four t eenth Amendment by denyi ng same- sex coupl es i n Puer t o Ri co

t he r i ght t o mar r y or t o have marr i ages val i dl y per f or med i n another

j ur i sdi ct i on gi ven f ul l r ecogni t i on. 16 Ther ef or e, t he par t i es’ j oi nt

mot i on f or ent r y of j udgment ( Docket No. 64) i s her eby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I n San J uan, Puert o Ri co, March 8, 2016.

S/ J UAN M. PÉREZ- GI MÉNEZ

JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

16 I t i s wor t h not i ng t hat i n ear l i er st ages of t hi s l i t i gat i on, t he Commonweal t hof f i ci al s def ended t he const i t ut i onal i t y of Ar t i cl e 68 as a val i d exer ci se of t he Puer t oRi co Legi sl at ur e’ s power t o r egul at e f ami l y af f ai r s, i ncl udi ng mar r i age. See e. g. DocketNo. 31.


Documents

Ada Conde Vidal v. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla; Order