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. 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. This would be a unique structure, as local courts generally  do not exercise federal criminal jurisdiction. 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. The U.S. Specifically, the objectives of our review were to discuss: (1) the current system and structure for adjudicating matters of federal  law arising 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 that have been offered for or against changing the current  system and structure for adjudicating matters of federal law in  American Samoa;  (3) the description of different scenarios for establishing a federal court in  American Samoa or expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High  Court of American Samoa if a change to the current system were  made, if a change to the current system were made, and the  identification of issues associated with each scenario; and,    (4) the potential cost elements and funding sources associated with  implementing the different scenarios for establishing a federal court 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. Specifically, this report 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. To conduct this work, we reviewed previous studies and testimonies, and collected information from and conducted interviews with federal government officials and American Samoa government officials.

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 this study. Based on previous studies and information gathered for this 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.