Territory of Guam v. Davis

The Supreme Court declined to hear Guam's appeal, which means the lower court's ruling stands. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that Guam could not limit a vote on its future political status to only 'Native Inhabitants' because that restriction was based on race.

This decision prevents Guam from holding a vote that excludes residents who do not meet specific ancestral requirements. It protects the principle that voting rights cannot be restricted based on race or ancestry in U.S. territories.

The case centers on the Fifteenth Amendment, which stops the government from denying the right to vote based on race. It highlights the ongoing tension between the rights of indigenous groups in territories and federal constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to review the case) on May 4, 2020, leaving the lower court's decision in place.

Guam cannot use ancestry as a proxy for race to limit who is allowed to vote in a plebiscite (a direct vote by citizens).

Lower courts and local officials in Guam must now ensure that any future votes on political status are open to all eligible voters regardless of their ancestry. Legal experts will watch how this affects other territories seeking to define their relationship with the United States.

The dispute was whether Guam could limit a vote on its future political status to 'Native Inhabitants' only. A resident challenged this, arguing it was racial discrimination.

Voters who are not considered 'Native Inhabitants' can no longer be excluded from participating in status votes. This ensures a broader portion of the population has a voice.

The court applied the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits denying the right to vote based on race. It found that the term 'Native Inhabitants' acted as a proxy for race.

Since the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the legal battle in federal court is over. Parties must now follow the Ninth Circuit's ruling in future elections.

This case follows a trend of courts strictly enforcing voting equality in U.S. territories. It limits the ability of territorial governments to create ancestry-based voting qualifications.