Ranger American of the V.I., Inc., et al. v. Frederick J. Balboni, Jr.

Congress has the power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations” for United States territories. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3. Throughout history, it has used this authority to extend portions of the Bill of Rights to the country’s territories through federal legislation. Territorial courts have at times tried to interpret a Congressionally-applied bill of rights differently than this Court interprets the source—the Bill of Rights. When Congress extended the Double Jeopardy Clause to the Philippines but its highest court departed from this Court’s double jeopardy jurisprudence, this Court reversed. Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904). Likewise, the Guam Supreme Court was reversed when it interpreted the First Amendment (applied to Guam by a federal statute) differently than this Court’s First Amendment precedent. Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Similar decisions in other United States possessions yielded similar results. See United States v. Husband R., 453 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 935 (1972) (Panama Canal Zone) and South Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Buscaglia, 154 F.2d 96 (1st Cir. 1946) (Puerto Rico). This case is here because the Virgin Islands Supreme Court circumvented this Court’s precedent in Kepner, rejected Guerrero, and ignored Husband R. and Buscaglia. The question presented is: Is the Virgin Islands Supreme Court bound by this Court’s Equal Protection decisions where Congress explicitly applied the Equal Protection Clause to the Territory via a federal statute?