Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Downes v. Bidwell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1901 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPorto RicoForaker Actuniformity clausedutiesterritoriesrevenue clausesimports

Facts

After Congress passed the Foraker Act, merchandise arriving in New York from Porto Rico was charged a duty equal to fifteen percent of the duties imposed on like articles imported from foreign countries. The plaintiff paid those duties and sought to recover them back. He argued that, because Porto Rico had ceased to be a foreign country after the treaty with Spain, it was part of the United States, so duties on goods coming from Porto Rico violated the Constitution's requirement that duties, imposts, and excises be uniform throughout the United States. The case therefore turned on Porto Rico's constitutional status under the revenue clauses after cession and after the Foraker Act.

Issue

Whether Porto Rico, after its cession by Spain and after the Foraker Act, was part of the United States within the Constitution's revenue clauses, so that Congress could not impose duties on merchandise brought from Porto Rico into New York. More broadly, the question was whether the revenue clauses of the Constitution extended of their own force to newly acquired territories.

Rule

A newly acquired territory may be a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States without being part of the United States within the meaning of the revenue clauses of the Constitution. Therefore, the constitutional requirement that duties, imposts, and excises be uniform throughout the United States does not of its own force apply to such territory unless it is part of the United States in that constitutional sense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a war, the United States acquires Isla Verde from another nation by treaty. Congress soon creates a civil government for Isla Verde and then requires a 12% duty on coffee shipped from Isla Verde into Baltimore, Maryland, while identical coffee moving between Ohio and Maryland bears no such duty.

An importer sues to recover the duty, arguing that because Isla Verde now belongs to the United States, the Constitution requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States. Which result is most consistent with the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority doctrine is that a newly acquired territory may be appurtenant to and belong to the United States without being part of the United States within the revenue clauses. Therefore, the Uniformity Clause does not apply of its own force merely because the territory has been acquired. The territory need not be a foreign country for the duty to be upheld; it can belong to the United States yet still fall outside 'the United States' for revenue-clause purposes.