Decisions of the  District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands and the District Court of  Guam may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,  and decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands may be appealed  to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Unlike Other Insular Areas, Matters of Federal Law in American Samoa Are Adjudicated in U.S. District Courts in Hawaii or the District of Columbia

Unlike other insular areas, such as CNMI, Guam, and USVI, American  Samoa does not have a federal court. Reasons offered against changing the current system of adjudicating  matters of federal law focus largely on concerns about the impact of an  increased federal presence on Samoan culture and traditions, as well as  concerns regarding the impartiality of local juries. Reasons Offered for Changing the Current System Focus Principally on the Difficulties of Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law and Greater Access to Justice

As was the case in the 1990s, and was repeated in the interviews we  conducted and e-mail comments we received, the reasons offered for  changing the American Samoa judicial system principally stem from  challenges associated with adjudicating matters of federal law arising in  American Samoa and the desire to provide American Samoans with  greater access to justice. Federal law enforcement officials have identified  a number of issues that limit their ability to pursue matters of federal law  arising in American Samoa. This issue had also been discussed in the  mid-1990s. Each scenario would require a statutory change and  present unique operational issues to be addressed. Three Scenarios Present Different Structures and Operational Issues to Be Resolved

Based on our review of past legislative proposals, testimonies, and reports,  and through discussions with legal experts and American Samoa and  federal government officials, we identified three potential scenarios for  establishing a federal court in American Samoa or expanding the federal  jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa:  1.  establishing an Article IV district court in American Samoa,  2.  establishing a district court in American Samoa that would be a  division of the District of Hawaii, or  3.  expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American  Samoa. Potential Cost Elements Subject to Considerable Uncertainties

The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in American  Samoa include agency rental costs, personnel costs, and operational costs;  most of which would be funded by congressional appropriations. U.S. While the cost data are  very limited, in the end, the controversy surrounding whether and how to  create a venue for adjudicating matters of federal law emanating from  American Samoa is not principally focused on costs, but on other factors,  such as equity, justice, and cultural preservation. Thus, policy  considerations, other than an analysis of cost effectiveness, are more  likely to be the basis for deciding whether and how to establish a court  with federal jurisdiction in American Samoa.
Why GAO Did This Study

American Samoa is the only populated U.S. insular area that does not have a federal court. Congress has granted the local High Court federal jurisdiction for certain federal matters, such as specific areas of maritime law. GAO was asked to conduct a study of American Samoa's system for addressing matters of federal law. This testimony discusses: (1) the current system for adjudicating matters of federal law in American Samoa and how it compares to those in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI); (2) the reasons offered for or against changing the current system for adjudicating matters of federal law in American Samoa; (3) potential scenarios and issues associated with establishing a federal court in American Samoa or expanding the federal jurisdiction of the local court; and (4) the potential cost elements and funding sources associated with implementing those different scenarios. This testimony is based on GAO work performed from April 2007 to June 2008.

What GAO Found

Because American Samoa does not have a federal court like the CNMI, Guam, or USVI, matters of federal law arising in American Samoa have generally been adjudicated in U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the District of Columbia. Reasons offered for changing the existing system focus primarily on the difficulties of adjudicating matters of federal law arising in American Samoa, principally based on American Samoa's remote location, and the desire to provide American Samoans more direct access to justice. Reasons offered against any changes focus primarily on concerns about the effects of an increased federal presence on Samoan culture and traditions and concerns about juries' impartiality given close family ties. During the mid-1990s, several proposals were studied and many of the issues discussed then, such as the protection of local culture, were also raised during the GAO study. Based on previous studies and information gathered for its June 2008 report, GAO identified three potential scenarios, if changes were to be made: (1) establish a federal court in American Samoa under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, (2) establish a district court in American Samoa as a division of the District of Hawaii, or (3) expand the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa. Each scenario would present unique issues to be addressed, such as what jurisdiction to grant the court. The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in American Samoa include agency rental costs, personnel costs, and operational costs, most of which would be funded by congressional appropriations. Exact details of the costs to be incurred would have to be determined when, and if, any of the scenarios were adopted. The controversy surrounding whether and how to create a venue for adjudicating matters of federal law in American Samoa is not principally focused on an analysis of cost effectiveness, but other policy considerations, such as equity, justice, and cultural preservation.