American Samoa: Issues Associated with Some Federal Court Options
(18-SEP-08, GAO-08-1124T).					 
                                                                 
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.								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1124T					        
    ACCNO:   A84284						        
  TITLE:     American Samoa: Issues Associated with Some Federal Court
Options 							 
     DATE:   09/18/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Appellate courts					 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Cost control					 
	     Cost effectiveness analysis			 
	     Court costs					 
	     Courts (law)					 
	     Criminals						 
	     Federal courts					 
	     Federal law					 
	     Federal legislation				 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     International cooperation				 
	     International law					 
	     International relations				 
	     Judicial remedies					 
	     Jurisdictional authority				 
	     Litigation 					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems analysis					 
	     Systems management 				 
	     Territories and possessions			 
	     Cost awareness					 
	     Cost estimates					 
	     American Samoa					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-1124T

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular 
Affairs, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, September 18, 2008: 

American Samoa: 

Issues Associated with Some Federal Court Options: 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director: Homeland Security and 
Justice Team: 

GAO-08-1124T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1124T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Insular Affairs, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
Representatives. 

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 Samoaï¿½s 
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 Samoaï¿½s 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 juriesï¿½ 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.
 
Figure: Map Showing the Locations of American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, and 
USVI: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

Source: GAO, Map Resources (map art). 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

This testimony contains no recommendations, but rather is focused on 
providing decision makers with further details on various scenarios for 
potentially changing the current system of adjudicating matters of 
federal law in American Samoa. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1124T]. For more 
information, contact William Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Federal Court Options for 
American Samoa. American Samoa is unique among U.S. insular areas in 
that it does not have a federal court.[Footnote 1] A U.S. territory 
since the early 1900s, American Samoa has internal self-government 
under a locally adopted Constitution, and the High Court of American 
Samoa is not part of the U.S. federal judicial structure. American 
Samoa's local judiciary was initially created and administered by the 
U.S. Navy, but since 1951 has operated under the authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior, who appoints the High Court Chief Justice 
and Associate Justice. 

The issue of establishing a federal court in American Samoa is not new. 
In the mid-1990s, legislative proposals were developed that would have 
included the establishment of a federal court in American Samoa. 
However, these initiatives were not enacted by Congress and were 
controversial among American Samoans. Then, again, in February 2006, 
the Delegate from American Samoa introduced legislation in the U.S. 
Congress to establish a federal court in American Samoa[Footnote 2] and 
later that month, the American Samoa legislature held a public hearing 
to solicit public comments.[Footnote 3] No congressional actions were 
taken on the bill and the Delegate from American Samoa withdrew the 
legislation after he and others requested a GAO report, which was 
issued on June 27, 2008.[Footnote 4] 

My statement is based on our June 2008 report, which examined the 
unique judicial structure of American Samoa and identified the issues 
associated with establishing a federal court in American Samoa. 
Specifically, we discussed (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) 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, 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. 

We conducted our prior performance audit from April 2007 to June 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary: 

In contrast to other insular areas of the United States, such as CNMI, 
Guam, and USVI, which have their own federal courts, American Samoa 
does not have a federal court; rather, the High Court of American Samoa 
has been granted limited federal jurisdiction for certain issues, such 
as food safety, protection of animals, conservation, and shipping 
issues. Because of the limits to the High Court's federal jurisdiction, 
other matters of federal law arising in American Samoa--principally 
criminal cases--have been adjudicated in U.S. district courts, mainly 
in Hawaii or the District of Columbia. Since a 2001 precedent-setting 
case involving human trafficking, federal prosecutors have initiated 
criminal proceedings in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii, in addition 
to past practices of handling matters only in the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia. With regard to federal civil cases, in 
certain circumstances, such as when both the plaintiff and the 
defendant reside in American Samoa and the events giving rise to the 
civil action occurred in American Samoa, there is no federal court with 
jurisdiction to handle such matters. 

Reasons offered for changing the existing system focus primarily on the 
difficulties of adjudicating matters of federal law arising in American 
Samoa, such as logistical challenges related to American Samoa's remote 
location, along with the goal of providing residents with more direct 
access to justice in their place of residence, while 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 given close family ties. 
During the mid-1990s, several proposals for changing the current system 
for adjudicating matters of federal law were studied and many of the 
issues discussed at that time, such as protecting local culture and 
traditions, were also raised during our study. 

Based on these prior studies and information gathered for our June 2008 
report, we identified three principal scenarios for change, if a change 
to the current system were made: (1) establishing a district court in 
American Samoa pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, 
[Footnote 5] (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. Key issues 
associated with implementing any of these scenarios include the need 
for enacting a statutory change and overcoming operational challenges, 
such as what jurisdiction to grant the court and what type of 
courthouse and detention facility would need to be built under each 
scenario. 

The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in 
American Samoa under the first two scenarios include court construction 
and agency rental costs, as well as personnel and operational costs for 
judicial and executive branch staff, most of which would be funded by 
direct appropriations to each federal agency. However, the estimated 
cost elements for these two scenarios are based on assumptions that 
could change in actual implementation and the exact details of the 
jurisdiction, staffing, and physical facilities would have to be 
determined if, and when, any of the scenarios were adopted. Therefore, 
the cost elements presented cannot be used for budget purposes and an 
analysis of cost effectiveness for individual scenarios would be of 
limited value given the data limitations. Regarding the third scenario, 
we did not collect cost data because the granting of federal criminal 
jurisdiction and expanded federal civil jurisdiction to the local High 
Court would be a unique judicial arrangement, and there is no existing 
federal structure upon which federal agencies could base cost 
estimates. 

Background: 

American Samoa, the only U.S. insular area in the southern hemisphere, 
is located about 2,600 miles southwest of Hawaii. American Samoa 
consists of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls, covering a land 
area of 76 square miles, slightly larger than Washington, D.C. 
According to American Samoa Department of Commerce data, in 2005, the 
population of American Samoa was about 65,500.[Footnote 6] Unlike 
residents born in CNMI, Guam, and USVI, residents born in American 
Samoa are nationals of the United States, but many become naturalized 
U.S. citizens.[Footnote 7] Like residents of the other insular areas, 
residents of American Samoa have many of the rights of citizens of the 
50 states, but cannot vote in U.S. national elections and do not have 
voting representation in the final approval of legislation by the full 
Congress. According to Census Bureau data for 2000, the median 
household income in American Samoa was $18,200, less than half of the 
U.S. median household income of almost $41,000. 

American Samoa does not have an organic act that formally establishes 
its relationship with the United States. Two deeds of cession were 
initially completed between Samoan chiefs, or matai, and the United 
States in 1900 and 1904[Footnote 8] and ratified by the federal 
government in 1929.[Footnote 9] In these deeds, the United States 
pledged to promote peace and welfare, to establish a good and sound 
government, and to preserve the rights and property of the people. The 
U.S. Navy was initially responsible for federal governance of the 
territory. Then, in 1951, federal governance was transferred to the 
Secretary of the Interior, which continues today. The Secretary 
exercises broad powers with regard to American Samoa, including "all 
civil, judicial, and military powers" of government in American Samoa. 
[Footnote 10] American Samoa has had its own constitution since 1960, 
and since 1983, the local American Samoa constitution may only be 
amended by an act of Congress.[Footnote 11] 

The American Samoa Constitution provides for three separate branches of 
government--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Since 
1977, a popularly elected Governor heads the American Samoa executive 
branch for 4-year terms.[Footnote 12] Nearly 40 American Samoa 
departments, offices, and other entities within the executive branch of 
the American Samoa government provide public safety, public works, 
education, health, commerce, and other services. The Governor has 
responsibility for appointing the Attorney General, Director of Public 
Safety, and other executive branch agency leaders. The legislature, or 
Fono, is comprised of 18 senators and 20 representatives. Each of the 
senators is elected in accordance with Samoan custom by the city 
councils of the counties that the senator represents. Each of the 
representatives is popularly elected from the representative districts. 
American Samoa exercises authority over its immigration system through 
its own locally adopted laws. In fiscal year 2007, a total of almost 
$105 million in federal funds were provided from a variety of federal 
agencies, including the Departments of the Interior, Education, 
Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human Services. 
Specifically, DOI provided funds that same year in the amount of $22.9 
million for American Samoa government operations, including the High 
Court of American Samoa. In addition to these federal funds, a portion 
of the funding for American Samoa government operations comes from 
local revenues. 

American Samoa Judiciary: 

The American Samoa judiciary, as provided in the American Samoa 
Constitution and American Samoa Code, consists of a High Court and a 
local district court under the administration and supervision of the 
Chief Justice.[Footnote 13] The High Court consists of four divisions-
-the trial division; the family, drug, and alcohol division; the land 
and titles division; and the appellate division.[Footnote 14] The trial 
division, which consists of the Chief Justice, the Associate Justice, 
and associate judges, is a court of general jurisdiction, empowered to 
hear, among other things, felony cases and civil cases in which the 
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000. The Chief Justice and the 
Associate Justice are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior 
and are required to be trained in the law. There are six associate 
judges, who are appointed by the Governor and are not required to have 
formal legal training. The associate judges are matai, or chiefs, and 
they preside over cases in the High Court, playing a more significant 
role in deciding issues of matai titles and land. There is one local 
district court judge, who is appointed by the Governor and must also 
have formal legal training, who hears matters, such as misdemeanor 
criminal offenses and civil cases in which the matter in controversy 
does not exceed $5,000.[Footnote 15] The Chief and Associate Justices, 
and the local district and associate judges hold office for life with 
good behavior.[Footnote 16] The American Samoa judiciary has a public 
defender, probation officers, translators, and marshals. Since the 
1970s the Secretary of the Interior has appointed federal judges, 
usually from the Ninth Circuit, to serve temporarily as Acting 
Associate Justices in the appellate division of the High Court of 
American Samoa.[Footnote 17] 

American Samoan Customs and Traditions: 

American Samoan customs and traditions have an influence over the local 
legal system. The distinctive Samoan way of life, or fa'a Samoa, is 
deeply imbedded in traditional American Samoa history and culture. Fa'a 
Samoa is organized around the concept of extended family groups--people 
related by blood, marriage, or adoption--or aiga. Family members 
acknowledge allegiance to the island leader hierarchy comprised of 
family leaders, or matai (chiefs). Matai are responsible for the 
welfare of their respective aiga and play a central role in protecting 
and allocating family lands. About 90 percent of land in American Samoa 
is communally owned and controlled by matai, and there are limits in 
American Samoa law regarding the transfer of property.[Footnote 18] The 
concept of fa'a Samoa extends to the governance structures in American 
Samoa and, thus, most high-ranking government officials, including 
judges, are matai. Further, Samoan law allows for a custom of ifoga, or 
ceremonial apology, whereby if a member of one family commits an 
offense against a member of another family, the family of the offender 
proceeds to the headquarters of the family of the offended person and 
asks for forgiveness. After appropriate confession of guilt and 
ceremonial contrition by the offending family, the family offended 
against can forgive the offense. If the offender is convicted in court, 
the court may reduce the sentence of the offender if it finds that an 
ifoga was performed. 

Past Proposals to Establish a Federal Court in American Samoa: 

The issue of establishing a federal court in American Samoa is not new. 
This issue has arisen within the larger question of defining the 
political status of American Samoa and its relationship with the United 
States. For example, in the 1930s, Congress considered legislation that 
would provide an avenue of appeal from the High Court of American Samoa 
to the U.S. District Court of Hawaii, during its deliberation of an 
organic act for American Samoa. However, this initiative was not 
enacted by Congress. Further, since 1969, there have been three 
American Samoa commissions convened to study the future political 
status of American Samoa. These commissions have studied, among other 
things, the necessity of an organic act.[Footnote 19] The most recent 
commission's report, published in January 2007, did not recommend any 
changes in American Samoa's political status as an unorganized and 
unincorporated territory of the United States, with the intent that 
American Samoa could continue to be a part of the United States and 
also have the freedom to preserve Samoan culture.[Footnote 20] In 
addition, in the mid-1990s, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed 
legislative options for changing the judicial structure of American 
Samoa, including establishing a federal court within the territory. 
These proposals were developed in response to growing concerns 
involving white-collar crime in American Samoa, which were detailed in 
a December 1994 DOJ crime assessment report.[Footnote 21] However, 
while the House Committee on Resources held hearings on the DOJ report 
in August 1995, and judicial committees studied various legislative 
options, Congress did not take any actions on the proposals. Then, in 
February 2006, the Delegate from American Samoa introduced legislation 
in the U.S. Congress to establish a federal court in American Samoa and 
later that month, the American Samoa Fono held a joint legislative 
public hearing to solicit public comments on the bill.[Footnote 22] No 
congressional actions were taken on the bill and the Delegate from 
American Samoa withdrew the legislation after he and others requested 
the June 2008 GAO report. 

Differences between Article IV Courts in Insular Areas and Article III 
Courts: 

The federal courts in the insular areas of CNMI, Guam, and USVI were 
established under Article IV of the Constitution, whereas U.S. district 
courts elsewhere in the United States were established under Article 
III of the Constitution.[Footnote 23] Article IV courts are similar to 
Article III courts, but differ in terms of specific jurisdiction and 
tenure of the judges. Article IV courts generally exercise the same 
jurisdiction as Article III courts and may also exercise jurisdiction 
over local matters. Article IV judges are appointed by the President, 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, serve terms of 10 years, and 
can be removed by the President for cause. Article III judges are 
appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
and serve with Article III protections of life tenure for good behavior 
and immunity from reductions in salary. Article IV judges hear both 
federal and bankruptcy cases, whereas Article III courts generally have 
a separate unit to hear bankruptcy cases. An Article III judge can be 
designated by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals or the 
Chief Justice of the United States to sit on an Article IV court. 
However, an Article IV judge can be designated to sit only as a 
magistrate judge on an Article III court.[Footnote 24] 

The Federal Courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI: 

The federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI were established at 
different times, but developed in similar ways. The District Court for 
the Northern Mariana Islands was established in 1977 as specified in 
the 1975 agreement, or covenant, between the Northern Mariana Islands 
and the United States.[Footnote 25] The District Court of Guam was 
established when the federal government passed an Organic Act for Guam 
in 1950.[Footnote 26] The District Court of the Virgin Islands, as it 
currently exists, was established by an Organic Act in 1936.[Footnote 
27] Each of these federal courts initially had jurisdiction over 
federal, as well as local, issues. Over time, however, the federal 
courts were divested of jurisdiction over local issues, with the 
exception of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which maintains 
jurisdiction over cases involving local offenses that have the same 
underlying facts as federal offenses.[Footnote 28] Similarly, each of 
the federal courts had appellate jurisdiction over the local trial 
courts until the local government established a local appellate court. 
CNMI, Guam, and USVI have all established local Supreme Courts, so that 
the federal courts no longer have appellate jurisdiction over local 
cases. As such, the jurisdiction of each of the three federal courts 
currently resembles that of district courts of the United States, which 
include federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and the 
jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court.[Footnote 29] 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. An 
Article IV judge--two Article IV judges in the case of the Virgin 
Islands--sits on each of the federal courts and is appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 10 
years, but may be removed by the President for cause. 

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. As a result, federal law 
enforcement officials have pursued violations of federal criminal law 
arising in American Samoa in the U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the 
District of Columbia. In the absence of a federal court in American 
Samoa, federal law has provided federal jurisdiction to the High Court 
of American Samoa in areas such as food safety and shipping issues, 
which is quite narrow compared to the comprehensive federal 
jurisdiction granted to federal courts in other insular areas. 

American Samoa's Local Judicial Structure Differs from Local Judicial 
Structures in CNMI, Guam, and USVI: 

With regard to its local judicial structure, American Samoa is 
different from other U.S. insular areas. The judicial system in 
American Samoa consists only of local courts that handle limited 
federal matters, whereas the judicial system in CNMI, Guam, and USVI 
are composed of local courts and federal courts that operate 
independently from each other. Also, whereas the justices of the High 
Court in American Samoa are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, 
the judges of the local courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI are appointed by 
the Governors of each insular area. Further, although decisions of the 
appellate division of the High Court of American Samoa have been 
appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, federal law provides that, 
15 years after the establishment of a local appellate court, decisions 
of the local appellate courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI may be appealed 
to the U.S. Supreme Court.[Footnote 30] As stated earlier, because 
there is no federal court in American Samoa, matters of federal law 
arising in American Samoa have generally been adjudicated in either the 
District of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii) or the District of Columbia 
(Washington, D.C.). 

Federal Criminal Cases Arising in American Samoa Are Generally Heard in 
Hawaii and the District of Columbia: 

With regard to criminal matters, although federal criminal law extends 
to American Samoa, questions surrounding the proper jurisdiction and 
venue of cases have posed complex legal issues when violations of 
federal law occurred solely in American Samoa.[Footnote 31] However, 
since a 2001 precedent-setting case involving human 
trafficking,[Footnote 32] DOJ prosecutors told us that some of the 
legal issues regarding jurisdiction and venue that had been unsettled 
in the past have been resolved. For example, federal law provides that 
the proper venue for a criminal case involving a federal crime 
committed outside of a judicial district is: (1) the district in which 
the defendant is arrested or first brought; or (2) if the defendant is 
not yet arrested or first brought to a district, in the judicial 
district of the defendant's last known residence; or (3) if no such 
residence is known, in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia.[Footnote 33] 

Prior to this 2001 case, most cases arising in American Samoa were 
brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In 
this 2001 case, prosecutors used the "first brought" statute to 
establish venue in the District of Hawaii, since the defendant was 
arrested and "first brought" to Hawaii and then indicted in the 
District of Hawaii. Based on the facts and arguments presented, the 
Ninth Circuit upheld this application of the "first brought" statute. 
[Footnote 34] Following this case, most defendants who have been 
charged with committing federal offenses in American Samoa have been 
charged in one of two venues--the U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the 
District of Columbia, because there is no federal court in American 
Samoa.[Footnote 35] In 2006 and 2007, DOJ attorneys prosecuted 
defendants in the U.S. district courts in both Hawaii and the District 
of Columbia for civil rights violations and public corruption cases 
arising in American Samoa.[Footnote 36] DOJ prosecutors told us that 
their approach is adjusted depending on the facts of each case, legal 
challenges presented, and prosecutorial resources available. 

Proper Federal Venue May Not Exist for the Adjudication of Certain 
Federal Civil and Bankruptcy Matters: 

With regard to certain federal civil matters, when both the plaintiff 
and the defendant reside in American Samoa, and the events giving rise 
to the civil action occurred in American Samoa, there may be no proper 
federal venue, meaning there may be no federal court that may hear the 
case.[Footnote 37] However, some civil cases have been brought against 
the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) alleging that the 
Secretary's administration of the government of American Samoa violated 
the U.S. Constitution.[Footnote 38] In such cases, the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia has been the appropriate forum, 
given that DOI is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 

Bankruptcy relief is not available in American Samoa since federal law 
has not explicitly extended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to American Samoa, 
and there is not a federal court in American Samoa in which bankruptcy 
claims may be adjudicated.[Footnote 39] However, U.S. bankruptcy courts 
may exercise jurisdiction over petitions for relief filed by American 
Samoan entities under certain circumstances, such as if the entities 
reside or do business in a judicial district of the United States and 
the court finds that exercising jurisdiction would be in the best 
interest of the creditors and the debtors. 

The Federal Jurisdiction of American Samoa's High Court is Very Limited 
Compared to Federal Courts in Other Insular Areas: 

Despite the absence of a federal court in American Samoa, federal law 
provides that the local court--the High Court of American Samoa--has 
limited federal civil jurisdiction. However, the federal jurisdiction 
of the High Court of American Samoa is very limited compared to 
comprehensive federal jurisdiction in federal courts located in CNMI, 
Guam, and USVI. In particular, federal law has explicitly granted the 
High Court of American Samoa federal jurisdiction for certain issues, 
such as food safety, protection of animals, conservation, and shipping 
issues. 

Although the High Court does not keep data on the number of federal 
cases it handles, the Chief Justice of the High Court told us that, on 
occasion, these federal matters, particularly maritime cases,[Footnote 
40] have taken a significant amount of the court's time. The Chief 
Justice noted that the piecemeal nature of the High Court's federal 
jurisdiction sometimes creates challenges. For example, although the 
High Court has jurisdiction to hear certain maritime cases, the High 
Court does not have the authority under certain federal statutes to 
enjoin federal court proceedings or to transfer a case to a federal 
court. Such a situation may lead to parallel litigation in the High 
Court and a federal court.[Footnote 41] 

In addition to the limits of federal jurisdiction, there are 
differences in the way federal matters are heard in the High Court 
compared to the federal courts in other insular areas. For example, 
whereas the Secretary of the Interior asserts authority to review High 
Court decisions under federal law, the U.S. Courts of Appeals have 
appellate review of decisions of the federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and 
USVI. Also, as stated earlier, whereas the Justices of the High Court 
of American Samoa are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, the 
judges of the federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI are appointed by 
the President, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. 

Proposals for Changing the Current System of Adjudicating Matters of 
Federal Law in American Samoa Remain Controversial: 

While various proposals to change the current system of adjudicating 
matters of federal law in American Samoa have been periodically 
discussed and studied, controversy remains regarding whether any 
changes are necessary and, if so, what options should be pursued. In 
the mid-1990s, various proposals to change the current system were 
studied by judicial committees and federal officials. Issues that were 
raised at that time, such as protecting American Samoan culture and 
traditions, resurfaced during our interviews with federal and American 
Samoa government officials, legal experts, and in group discussions and 
public comments we received. Reasons offered for changing the existing 
system focus primarily on the difficulties of adjudicating matters of 
federal law arising in American Samoa, along with the goal of providing 
American Samoans with more direct access to justice in their place of 
residence. 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. 

Concerns with White-Collar Crime Led to Discussions in the Mid-1990s on 
Changing the System for Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law in American 
Samoa: 

The issue of changing the system for adjudicating matters of federal 
law in American Samoa has been raised in the past in response to a 
government audit and subsequent reports, which cite problems dating 
back to the 1980s. These reports cited problems with deteriorating 
financial conditions, poor financial management practices, and 
vulnerability to fraudulent activities in American Samoa.[Footnote 42] 
In March 1993, the newly elected Governor of American Samoa requested 
assistance from the Secretary of the Interior to help investigate white-
collar crime in American Samoa in response to a projected $60 million 
deficit uncovered by a DOI Inspector General audit.[Footnote 43] As a 
result of this request, a team from DOJ spent 3 months assessing the 
problem of white-collar crime in American Samoa and completed its 
report in December 1994.[Footnote 44] The report concluded that white-
collar crime--in particular, public corruption-- was prevalent in 
American Samoa and provided details on the difficulties with enforcing 
federal law in American Samoa. The report discussed three possible 
solutions: (1) establishing a district court in American Samoa, (2) 
providing the U.S. District Court of Hawaii with jurisdiction over 
certain matters of federal law arising in American Samoa, or (3) 
providing the High Court of American Samoa with federal criminal 
jurisdiction. 

By August 1995, the U.S. Congress held hearings on the 1994 DOJ report 
and possible alternatives to provide for the prosecution of federal 
crimes arising in American Samoa. At the hearing, some American Samoa 
government officials opposed suggestions for changing the judicial 
system in the territory and views were expressed regarding increased 
federal presence, the desire to retain self-determination over the 
judicial structure, and the need to protect and maintain the matai 
title and land tenure system in American Samoa. The American Samoa 
Attorney General at that time testified that his office and the 
Department of Public Safety had created a Joint Task Force on Public 
Corruption that investigated and prosecuted several white-collar 
offenses, including embezzlement, bribery, fraud, public corruption, 
forgery, and tax violations.[Footnote 45] 

For several months following the 1995 congressional hearings, different 
legislative options were studied by judicial committees within Congress 
and federal officials. One bill was drafted that would have given the 
U.S. District Court of Hawaii limited jurisdiction over federal cases 
arising in American Samoa. The bill proposed that one or more 
magistrate judges may sit in American Samoa, but district judges of the 
U.S. District Court of Hawaii would presumably preside over trials in 
Hawaii. The bill was opposed by some federal judicial officials citing 
an unfair burden that would be placed on the District of Hawaii, as 
well as on defendants, witnesses, and juries due, in part, to the 
logistical difficulties in transporting them between American Samoa and 
Hawaii.[Footnote 46] By 1996, the proposed legislation was revised to 
establish an Article IV court in American Samoa with full staff 
accompaniments and limited federal jurisdiction that would exclude 
cases that would put into issue the office or title of matai and land 
tenure.[Footnote 47] While DOJ sent the legislation to the President of 
the Senate and Speaker of the House in October 1996, it was never 
introduced into the 104th Congress or in subsequent congressional 
sessions. 

Concerns about Human Trafficking and Federal Grant-Related Corruption 
Have Heightened Law Enforcement Focus on American Samoa: 

While the mid-1990's legislative proposals were primarily concerned 
with white-collar crime in American Samoa, different types of criminal 
activities have more recently emerged. Prior to 1999, FBI officials 
told us that allegations of criminal activity in American Samoa were 
investigated by agents based in its Washington, D.C. field office and, 
due to the distance and costs involved, very few investigations were 
initiated. Around mid-1999, FBI began to assign Hawaii-based agents to 
investigations in American Samoa in response to increasing reports of 
criminal activity. Then, due to growing caseload and a crime 
assessment, in December 2005, FBI opened a resident agency in American 
Samoa. According to an FBI official, other than a National Park Service 
fish and wildlife investigator affiliated with the National Park of 
American Samoa, the FBI agents were the first federal law enforcement 
agents to be stationed in American Samoa. FBI's increased activities 
over the past 8 years, and establishment of a resident agency, have 
targeted a growing number of crimes in American Samoa, including public 
corruption of high-ranking government officials, fraud against the 
government, civil rights violations, and human trafficking. Among the 
most notable was U.S. v. Lee, which was the largest human trafficking 
case ever prosecuted by DOJ, as reported in 2007.[Footnote 48] This 
2001 case involved about 200 Chinese and Vietnamese victims who were 
held in a garment factory. In 2003, Lee was convicted in the U.S. 
District Court of Hawaii of involuntary servitude, conspiring to 
violate civil rights, extortion, and money laundering. Another federal 
case in 2006 resulted in guilty pleas from the prison warden and his 
associate for conspiring to deprive an inmate of rights, by assaulting 
him and causing him bodily injury.[Footnote 49] 

In December 2004, we found that American Samoa's failure to complete 
single audits,[Footnote 50] federal agencies' slow reactions to this 
failure, and instances of theft and fraud limited accountability for 12 
key federal grants supporting essential services in American Samoa. 
[Footnote 51] We recommended, among other things, that the Secretary of 
the Interior coordinate with other federal agencies to designate the 
American Samoa government as a high-risk grantee until it completed all 
delinquent single audits. In June 2005, DOI designated the American 
Samoa government as a high-risk grantee. The American Samoa government 
subsequently completed all overdue audits and made efforts to comply 
with single audit act requirements. Later, in December 2006, we 
reported that insular area governments, including American Samoa, face 
serious economic, fiscal, and financial accountability challenges and 
that their abilities to strengthen their economies were constrained by 
their lack of diversification in industries, scarce natural resources, 
small domestic markets, limited infrastructure, and shortages of 
skilled labor.[Footnote 52] Again, we cited the long-standing financial 
accountability problems in American Samoa, including the late 
submission of the reports required by the Single Audit Act, the 
inability to achieve unqualified ("clean") audit opinions on financial 
statements, and numerous material weaknesses in internal controls over 
financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations governing 
federal grant awards.[Footnote 53] We made several recommendations to 
the Secretary of the Interior, including increasing coordination 
activities with officials from other federal grant-making agencies on 
issues such as late single audit reports, high-risk designations, and 
deficiencies in financial management systems and practices. DOI agreed 
with our recommendations, but we have not yet assessed its progress 
toward implementing them. 

In addition to these GAO reviews, FBI and various inspector general 
agents have conducted a broad investigation into federal grant-related 
corruption in American Samoa, which yielded guilty pleas in October 
2005 from four former American Samoa government officials, including 
the Director of Procurement, the Director of the Department of 
Education, the Director of the Department of Health and Social 
Services, and the Director of the School Lunch Program. Additionally, 
recent audits and investigations by the Inspector General offices of 
the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and the Interior 
indicate that the American Samoa government has inadequate controls and 
oversight over federal funds, that federal competitive bidding 
practices have been circumvented, and that American Samoan officials 
have abused federal funds for personal benefit. For example, in 
September 2007, officials from the U.S. Department of Education 
designated the American Samoa government as a high-risk grantee due to 
serious internal control issues raised in previous single audits, and 
cited a number of underlying fiscal and management problems. Due to the 
department's concerns about the American Samoa government's ability to 
properly administer and provide services with its funds, the department 
imposed several special conditions, including restrictions on the 
drawdown of grant funds. Also, the American Samoa legislature, or Fono, 
has been assisting federal agencies in their efforts to investigate 
public corruption and other crimes. Specifically, in early 2007, the 
Fono established a Senate Select Investigative Committee to review and 
investigate any unlawful, improper, wasteful, or fraudulent operations 
involving local and federal funds or any other misconduct involving 
government operations within all departments, boards, commissions, 
committees, and agencies of the American Samoa government. An official 
stated the committee reviews and investigates complaints, holds senate 
hearings with relevant witnesses, and can refer cases to either the 
American Samoa Attorney General or FBI for investigation and 
prosecution. 

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. These include 
logistical challenges related to American Samoa's remote location. 
Proponents of changing the judicial system of American Samoa also cite 
reasons, such as providing American Samoans more direct access to 
justice as in other insular areas, serving as a possible deterrent to 
crime, and providing a means to alleviate the shame, embarrassment, and 
costs associated with being taken away to be tried more than 2,000 
miles from American Samoa. While the main areas of concern in the mid- 
1990s and in our discussions were related to criminal matters arising 
in American Samoa, there were also concerns regarding civil matters, 
such as federal debt collection, although these were not addressed in 
much detail. 

Logistical Challenges Related to American Samoa's Remote Location: 

Without a federal court in American Samoa, investigators and federal 
prosecutors whom we interviewed said they were limited in their ability 
to conduct investigations and prosecute cases due to logistical 
obstacles related to working in such a remote location. In addition to 
high travel costs, and infrequent flights into and out of American 
Samoa, DOJ officials said they face difficulties involving effective 
witness preparation and difficulties communicating with agents during a 
small window of time each day (due to the 7-hour time difference 
between Washington, D.C. and American Samoa). In some cases, search 
warrants or wiretaps were not used by the prosecutors to the extent 
that they would have been if American Samoa were in closer proximity to 
Washington, D.C. or Honolulu, Hawaii.[Footnote 54] Federal prosecutors 
told us that far fewer witnesses have been called to testify in front 
of the grand jury, given the burden of high travel costs from American 
Samoa. Federal prosecutors also told us that they must rely on witness 
observations and summaries from federal agents stationed in American 
Samoa rather than meet key witnesses face to face before bringing 
charges or issuing subpoenas, as they would typically do. Further, 
according to DOJ officials, the cost related to managing these cases 
has limited the number of cases they are able to pursue. Federal law 
enforcement agents told us that a federal court located in American 
Samoa could bring additional investigative and prosecutorial resources 
so that they would be able to pursue more cases. Although some have 
suggested that judicial and prosecutorial resources from the judicial 
districts of CNMI and Guam be deployed to American Samoa, the high 
travel costs and logistical obstacles would not be any less, given that 
there are no direct flights between American Samoa and Guam or between 
American Samoa and CNMI. 

More Direct Access to Federal Court and Parity with Other Insular 
Areas: 

Another key reason offered for changing the system for adjudicating 
matters of federal law in American Samoa is that a federal court would 
provide residents with more direct access to justice and the ability to 
more easily pursue cases in the federal court system. Currently, the 
ability to adjudicate federal cases exists only in very limited cases 
through the High Court, at a significant cost of time and money to 
travel to U.S. District Courts in Hawaii or Washington, D.C.; or not at 
all, in the case of some civil matters and bankruptcy. Proponents state 
that the establishment of a federal court would provide American Samoa 
parity with other insular areas, such as CNMI, Guam, and USVI, which 
have federal courts. Further, a legal expert said that a federal court 
in American Samoa would provide the community with an opportunity to 
see first hand how parties can come together to resolve their 
differences with regard to federal matters. For example, some have 
asserted that if public corruption trials were held in American Samoa, 
they would act as a deterrent to others contemplating fraudulent 
behavior; increase accountability with regard to government spending; 
and provide satisfaction in witnessing wrong doers brought to justice. 
Some stated in the February 2006 public hearing held by the Fono 
[Footnote 55] and in e-mail comments we received that they have felt 
shame and embarrassment when defendants are taken to distant courts and 
in our group discussions, it was stated that American Samoa is 
perceived by others as unable to render justice to its own residents. 
Further, some officials have noted the significant costs that 
defendants' families must bear in traveling great distances to provide 
support during trials. This burden is exacerbated by the comparatively 
low family incomes in American Samoa, which, as stated earlier, are 
less than half of the U.S. median household income, according to 2000 
Census Bureau data. 

Finally, some people we met with stated that the current system of 
holding federal criminal trials outside of American Samoa subjects 
defendants to possible prejudices by jurors in other locations. They 
cited the relative unfamiliarity of the judges and jurors in 
Washington, D.C. or Honolulu, Hawaii regarding American Samoan cultural 
and political issues and suggested that American Samoans would receive 
a fairer trial in American Samoa than in these locations. This issue 
had also been discussed in the mid-1990s. For example, in his testimony 
during August 1995 congressional hearings, the then-Governor of 
American Samoa stated that the people of American Samoa have the 
ability to deliver just verdicts based on the evidence presented. He 
noted that for almost 20 years prior, the trial division of the High 
Court had successfully conducted six-person jury trials as evidence 
that American Samoan customs and family loyalties had not prevented 
effective law enforcement.[Footnote 56] 

Comments from Group Discussions and E-mail Responses Reflect Some of 
the Same Reasons Offered for Changing the Current System: 

Views in support of changing the current system were also reflected in 
some comments made during the group discussions we held in American 
Samoa and in some of the e-mail responses we received. Some members of 
the public expressed discontent over the significant costs associated 
with American Samoan defendants and their families having to travel to 
Hawaii or Washington, D.C. for court matters and they expressed the 
importance of having a jury of their peers deciding their cases. Other 
members of the public and a local community group expressed their 
belief that a federal court in American Samoa may act as a deterrent 
for the abuse of federal funds and public corruption, and provide 
opportunities for American Samoans to pursue federal legal matters, 
such as bankruptcy. While there was no consensus opinion, certain 
members of the local bar association mentioned that having a federal 
court could be beneficial for economic development, by attracting 
qualified attorneys and court staff to American Samoa. Additionally, 
one member stated that a federal court may lighten the workload and 
reduce the backlog of the High Court by taking over its federal 
maritime and admiralty matters. 

Reasons Offered Against Changing the Current Judicial System Focus 
Principally on Preserving the Culture and Traditions of American Samoa 
and Concerns about Juries: 

One of the key reasons offered against changing the current judicial 
system is the concern that a federal court would impinge upon Samoan 
culture and traditions. The most frequent concerns raised were related 
issues--that the system of matai chiefs and the land tenure system 
could be jeopardized. In raising these issues, some cited the deeds of 
cession which specify that the United States would preserve the rights 
and property of the Samoan people. Further, some law enforcement 
officials we met with also opposed a change to the current system for 
prosecuting federal cases arising in American Samoa because they were 
concerned that, given the close familial ties in American Samoa, it 
would be difficult to obtain convictions from local jurors. 

Preservation of Local Culture and Traditions: 

During the February 2006 Fono hearings,[Footnote 57] in e-mail comments 
we received, and in statements by American Samoa government officials 
we interviewed, concerns were voiced that the establishment of a 
federal court in American Samoa could jeopardize the matai and land 
tenure system of American Samoa. As noted above, matai hold positions 
of authority in the community; for example, only matai may serve as 
senators in the American Samoa legislature, and matai control the use 
and development of the communal lands and allocate housing to their 
extended family members. The land tenure system of American Samoa is 
such that the majority of the land in American Samoa is communally 
owned, and the sale or exchange of communally owned land is prohibited 
without the consent of the Governor. Also prohibited is the sale or 
exchange of communally owned and individually owned property to people 
with less than one-half Samoan blood.[Footnote 58] American Samoa 
government officials assert that the land tenure system fosters the 
strong familial and community ties that are the backbone of Samoan 
culture and that limits on the transfer of land are important to 
preserve the lands of American Samoa for Samoans and protect the Samoan 
culture. 

Currently, cases regarding matai titles and land issues, such as 
disputes over the rightful successor to a matai or land use or 
improvements, are heard by the land and titles division of the High 
Court of American Samoa. This division is composed of the Chief Justice 
and Associate Justice, as well as associate judges, who are appointed 
based on their knowledge of Samoan culture and tradition. Pursuant to 
the federalist structure of the U.S. judiciary, if a federal court were 
established in American Samoa, most cases arising under local law, such 
as matai and land disputes, would likely continue to be heard by the 
local court. However, some American Samoa officials stated that they 
are concerned that if a federal court was established in American 
Samoa, a federal judge, without the requisite knowledge of Samoan 
culture and tradition, would hear land and title cases. They stated 
that they would like to keep matai title and land tenure issues within 
the jurisdiction of the High Court. 

Another concern that was raised by government officials and residents 
of American Samoa is that the presence of a federal court in American 
Samoa may generate constitutional challenges to the matai and land 
tenure system. Though such challenges may currently be brought in 
existing venues, some voiced concerns that the establishment of a 
federal court in American Samoa may make such challenges less costly 
and, perhaps, more likely. 

In general, many residents of American Samoa said they value their 
culture and traditions and think that the matai and land tenure systems 
in American Samoa are critical components of the fa'a Samoa. The 
following quote from the Secretary of Samoan Affairs summarizes the 
position we heard from many during our visit to American Samoa: 

To this day, our native land tenure system remains at the very core of 
our existence: our culture, our heritage and our way of life. Without 
our native land tenure system, our matai or chieftain system will fade 
over time--along with our language, our customs and our cultureï¿½.we, as 
a people, have an overriding desire to keep the fabric of our society 
(i.e., our Samoan culture) intact. No other U.S. state or territory 
enjoys the total and complete preservation of its people's culture as 
American Samoa. I fear that the imposition of a federal court system in 
American Samoa may have a destructive impact on our culture.[Footnote 
59] 

Concerns about Juries: 

Some have raised concerns regarding the establishment of a federal jury 
system, given the potentially small pool of U.S. citizens in American 
Samoa and the extended family ties among American Samoans. Federal law 
provides that federal jurors must be U.S. citizens. [Footnote 60] As 
discussed earlier, American Samoans are U.S. nationals, not U.S. 
citizens, although they may apply and become U.S. citizens. Neither the 
U.S. Census Bureau nor the American Samoa Department of Commerce 
provides data on the number of U.S. citizens in American Samoa. Thus, 
the proportion of the American Samoa adult population who are U.S. 
citizens is unknown. If the number of U.S. citizens is fairly small, 
then the pool from which to select federal jurors would be fairly small 
without a statutory change. In addition, law enforcement officials have 
speculated that extended family ties in American Samoa may limit the 
government's ability to successfully prosecute cases. Specifically, 
they raised the issue of jury nullification--the rendering of a not 
guilty verdict even though the jury believes that the defendant 
committed the offense--as a potential problem that may occur if jury 
trials were held in American Samoa, due to the influence of familial 
ties or other societal pressures on jurors. Federal law enforcement 
officials we met with added that some witnesses involved in testifying 
against others in previous federal criminal cases have relocated 
outside of American Samoa and have lost their jobs and housing as a 
result of their participation in cases. These officials stated that 
they believe that similar societal pressures will be imposed on jurors 
if trials were held in American Samoa. These officials concluded that 
the current system of federal criminal trials taking place away from 
American Samoa is the best way to get unbiased juries.[Footnote 61] 

Comments from Group Discussions and E-mail Responses Reflect Some of 
the Same Reasons Offered Against Changing the Current System: 

Views expressing opposition to changing the current system were also 
reflected in some comments we received from the group discussions we 
held in American Samoa and from e-mail responses. Some members of the 
public expressed concerns over an increased federal presence in 
American Samoa and the potential legal challenges which could be 
brought regarding the land tenure system and matai title traditions. 
Further, some expressed concerns about non-Samoans filing 
discrimination lawsuits over their inability to own land. Some stated 
that the current system operates well and they did not see a need for 
change. Others expressed opposition to a federal court in American 
Samoa due to their concerns about impartial jurors. They stated that if 
a federal court were established in American Samoa, jurors may not be 
able to be impartial because of the close relations through family, 
culture, church, government, or business. Finally, others expressed 
concerns about the U.S. government pushing and imposing its will on 
American Samoa, and their belief that changes to the current system 
should come not from the federal government but from American Samoans 
themselves. 

Scenarios for Establishing a Federal Court in American Samoa or 
Expanding the Federal Jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa 
Have Varied Support and Unresolved Issues: 

Based on our review of legislative proposals considered during the mid- 
1990s, testimonies and reports, and through discussions with legal 
experts and American Samoa and federal government officials, we 
identified three potential proposals, or scenarios, if a change to the 
judicial system of American Samoa were to be made. These scenarios are 
(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. Each scenario would 
require a statutory change and present unique operational issues to be 
addressed. To the extent possible, we cited written documents and 
knowledgeable sources in the discussion of these issues. See appendix I 
for detailed information on our scope and methodology. 

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. 

These scenarios are similar to those discussed in the 1990s, and are 
described in more detail in attachment I. Each scenario would require a 
statutory change and each presents unique operational issues that would 
need to be resolved prior to implementation. Some issues to be resolved 
include determining: 

* what jurisdiction would be granted to the court; 

* what type of courthouse facility and detention arrangements would be 
needed and to what standards, including security standards; and: 

* what jury eligibility requirements would apply. 

Scenario 1: Establishing an Article IV District Court in American 
Samoa: 

The original structure of this scenario came from draft legislation 
submitted by DOJ to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives 
and the President of the U.S. Senate in October 1996, which proposed 
the creation of a new federal court in American Samoa.[Footnote 62] The 
legislation specified that the court would have limited jurisdiction 
that would exclude matters pertaining to matai title and land tenure 
issues. Under this scenario, federal law would authorize a federal 
court structure that most closely resembled federal courts in CNMI, 
Guam, and USVI. It would include an Article IV district court with a 
district judge, court clerk, and support staff. Below is a description 
of the key issues under this scenario. 

Jurisdiction: The statute creating the Article IV district court would 
specify the court's jurisdiction. It could be limited to criminal cases 
only, or may or may not include bankruptcy, federal question, and 
diversity jurisdiction. American Samoa officials and others whom we 
interviewed were divided on whether the law establishing a district 
court in American Samoa should explicitly exclude matai and land tenure 
issues from the court's jurisdiction. Another possibility is that, as 
in other insular area federal courts, the federal jurisdiction of the 
court could grow over time. For example, while the District Court of 
Guam began with jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law in 
1950, subsequent federal laws expanded its jurisdiction to include that 
of a district court of the United States, including diversity 
jurisdiction, and that of a bankruptcy court. 

Appeals process: The process for appealing decisions would be the same 
as in other Article IV district courts. Appeals would first go to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. 

Judges: The judge would be appointed in the same manner as federal 
judges for the other insular areas, who are appointed by the President, 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, for 10-year terms. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: Probation and Pretrial 
services staff, U.S. Attorney and staff, and U.S. Marshals staff would 
establish stand-alone offices. Defender services could be provided, at 
least initially, through the Federal Public Defender Organization 
personnel based in the District of Hawaii and/or Criminal Justice Act 
(CJA) panel attorneys.[Footnote 63] CJA panel attorneys are designated 
or approved by the court to furnish legal representation for those 
defendants who are financially unable to obtain counsel.[Footnote 64] 

Physical facilities: Under this scenario, a new courthouse facility 
would need to be built to provide the courtroom, judge's chambers, 
office space for federal court staff, and a holding area for detaining 
defendants during trials. It is not clear if a detention facility for 
detaining defendants pretrial and presentencing would need to be built 
or if a portion of the existing local prison could be upgraded to meet 
federal standards. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the current 
local prison in American Samoa does not meet federal detention 
standards. 

Operational issues: Several judicial officials and experts we met with 
stated that this scenario is the most straightforward option because it 
would be modeled after the federal courts in other insular areas, which 
would place residents of American Samoa in a position that is equitable 
with residents of the other insular areas. Other judicial officials we 
met with stated, however, that this is potentially the most costly 
scenario of the three, given the relatively small caseload expected. 
However, the Pacific Islands Committee[Footnote 65] stated in its 1995 
Supplemental Report that new federal courts historically have drawn 
business as soon as they open their doors, and it is likely that growth 
in the court caseload would result.[Footnote 66] 

Scenario 2: Establishing a District Court in American Samoa That Would 
Be a Division of the District of Hawaii: 

This scenario would create a new division of American Samoa within the 
District of Hawaii.[Footnote 67] There are potentially several 
arrangements which could be devised to handle court matters. Since the 
U.S. District Court of Hawaii is an Article III court, a judge assigned 
to a Division of American Samoa would also presumably be an Article III 
judge, which would differ from the Article IV courts in CNMI, Guam, and 
USVI. Another possibility would be to assign an Article IV judge to 
American Samoa. Regardless of the arrangement, a clerk of the court and 
support staff would be needed in American Samoa to handle the work of 
the court. 

Jurisdiction: As with scenario 1, the statute creating the division in 
the District of Hawaii would specify the court's jurisdiction. It could 
be limited to criminal cases only, or may or may not include 
bankruptcy, federal question, and diversity jurisdiction. 

Appeals process: The process for appealing decisions would be the same 
as the District of Hawaii, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Judges: An Article III or Article IV judge would be appointed by the 
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serve either 
a life term with good behavior (Article III) or a 10-year term (Article 
IV) as is true in Guam, CNMI, and USVI. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: Probation and Pretrial 
services, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Marshals could provide the minimum 
staff required in American Samoa and share support functions with their 
offices in the District of Hawaii. Defender services could be provided, 
at least initially, through Federal Public Defender Organization 
personnel based in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii and/or CJA panel 
attorneys. 

Physical facilities: As with scenario 1, a new courthouse facility 
would need to be built to provide the courtroom, judge's chambers, 
office space for federal court staff, and a holding area for detaining 
defendants during trials. Also, similar to scenario 1, it is unclear 
whether a new detention facility would need to be built or if a portion 
of the existing local prison could be upgraded to meet federal 
standards. 

Operational issues: Some federal and judicial officials we interviewed 
told us that this scenario may be less costly than scenario 1 because 
as a division of the District of Hawaii, some administrative functions 
and resources may be able to be shared with Hawaii. Other federal and 
judicial officials told us that costs for staff to travel between 
American Samoa and Hawaii and additional supervisory staff which may be 
needed in Hawaii may make scenario 2 just as costly, or possibly more 
costly than scenario 1. Although this scenario would allow for trials 
to be held in American Samoa, there may be issues to be resolved 
concerning the status of any judges that would serve in the court and 
the degree to which resources could or would be shared with the U.S. 
District Court of Hawaii. For example, some judicial officials have 
raised questions of equity about the possibility of Article IV judges 
being assigned to federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI while an 
Article III judge was assigned to the federal court in American Samoa. 

Scenario 3: Expanding the Federal Jurisdiction of the High Court of 
American Samoa: 

This scenario would expand the federal jurisdiction of the High Court 
of American Samoa rather than establish a new federal court. This would 
be a unique structure, as local courts typically do not exercise 
federal criminal jurisdiction. As a result, a number of unresolved 
issues associated with this scenario would have to be resolved should 
this scenario be pursued. 

Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the High Court would be expanded to 
include additional federal matters, such as federal criminal 
jurisdiction. This would be a unique structure, as local courts 
generally do not exercise federal criminal jurisdiction. While there is 
a history of federal courts in insular areas with jurisdiction over 
local offenses, there has never been the reverse--a local court with 
jurisdiction over both local and federal offenses. 

Appeals process: The appellate process for federal matters under such a 
scenario is unclear. The current process for the limited federal cases 
handled by the High Court has five levels of appellate review: (1) to 
the Appellate Division of the High Court, (2) to the Secretary of the 
Interior, (3) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
(4) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
and (5) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the appeals process would be 
amended to match that of the federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI 
would have to be determined. 

Judges: The Chief Justice of the High Court stated that the High Court 
may need an additional judge to handle the increased caseload. 
Alternatively, in our discussions, Pacific Island Committee members 
with whom we met suggested that the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit could designate active and senior 
district judges within the Ninth Circuit to handle any court workload 
in American Samoa. They point out that they designated judges from the 
Ninth Circuit to the District of Guam for over 2 years, when there was 
an extended judge vacancy. Further, the Ninth Circuit has designated 
local judges to handle federal matters, when necessary. For example, 
the judges from the Districts of CNMI and Guam routinely use local 
Superior Court or Supreme Court judges to handle federal court matters 
and trials, in cases when they must recuse themselves from a court 
matter or in the case of a planned or emergency absence. However, 
Pacific Island Committee members with whom we met stated that 
presumably federal judges would only handle federal court matters. It 
was unclear whether High Court justices would handle federal and local 
court matters and what implications might arise from such a structure. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: It is unclear whether 
Probation and Pretrial services, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals 
would be established, since these staff are only provided to a district 
court. Similarly, the authority under the CJA to authorize a federal 
defender organization to provide representation or to compensate panel 
attorneys is vested in the district court. The Department of Justice 
would need to determine whether it would establish a federal prosecutor 
position in American Samoa to prosecute certain federal cases in the 
High Court. There are local Public Defender and Attorney General 
Offices in American Samoa and the extent to which they could assist 
with cases is unknown. According to the Chief Justice of the High 
Court, it is unlikely that the existing probation and pretrial or court 
security staff would be able to handle an increased workload. Currently 
the High Court has three probation officers who work part-time as 
translators for the court, and two marshals, one for each of the High 
Court's two courtrooms. 

Physical facilities: The extent to which federal detention and 
courtroom security requirements would apply is uncertain. Until this 
issue is resolved, activities could possibly continue in existing 
courthouse and detention facilities. However, the High Court justices 
and clerk said that current courtroom facilities are already used to 
capacity without the added caseload that federal jurisdiction could 
bring. 

Operational issues: This scenario may be the lowest-cost scenario and 
may alleviate concerns about the threat to the matai and land tenure 
systems. It is potentially the lowest-cost scenario because some of the 
existing court facilities and staff may be used. Some leaders within 
the American Samoa government believe this is the best option and 
supporters of this scenario note that the High Court has a history of 
respecting American Samoa traditions and so they have fewer concerns 
that issues of matai titles and land tenure would be in jeopardy. At 
the same time, as it is unprecedented to give federal criminal 
jurisdiction to a local court, this scenario could face the most 
challenges of the three, according to federal judges and other judicial 
officials. Legal experts with whom we met told us that, because this is 
a unique arrangement, the High Court and U.S. judiciary may be faced 
with having to constantly solve unique problems and develop solutions 
on a regular basis. For example, judicial officials stated that the 
High Court Justices would have to be cognizant of their roles and 
responsibilities when shifting from the duties of a local High Court 
Justice to the duties of a federal judge. A judicial official also 
noted that the High Court justices may have to become familiar with 
federal sentencing guidelines, which require a considerable amount of 
training. In the August 1995 hearing, the DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General stated that vesting federal jurisdiction in the High Court runs 
counter to well-established legislative policy that district courts 
should have exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of proceedings to 
which the United States is a party. For example, federal law states 
that U.S. district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses 
against the criminal laws of the United States[Footnote 68] and with 
respect to the collection of debts owed to the United States, provides 
for an exclusive debt collection procedure in the courts created by 
Congress.[Footnote 69] Similarly, federal regulatory statutes often 
provide for enforcement and judicial review in the federal courts. 

Another issue to be resolved is the appointment process for justices of 
the High Court. While none of the judicial officials with whom we met 
had concerns about the independence of the current justices, some 
expressed concerns about the differences in the way judges are 
appointed--while federal judges are generally appointed by the 
President, the justices in American Samoa are appointed by the 
Secretary of the Interior. As such, they suggested that the justices in 
American Samoa may not be subject to the same vetting process and 
protected by the same constitutional and statutory provisions--such as 
salary guarantees--as are district judges. 

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. We collected likely cost elements, to the extent 
possible, for scenario 1 and 2 from the various federal agencies that 
would be involved in establishing a federal court in American Samoa. We 
did not collect cost data for scenario 3 because of its unique judicial 
arrangement and because there was no comparable existing federal court 
structure upon which to estimate costs. For scenario 1 and 2, AOUSC 
officials told us that a new courthouse would need to be built. GSA 
officials told us that court construction and agency rental costs would 
be comparatively high--about $80 to $90 per square foot for a new 
courthouse, compared to typical federal government rental charges for 
office space in American Samoa of around $45 to $50 per square foot in 
2007. Funding sources for the judiciary and DOJ derive primarily from 
direct congressional appropriations and funding for a federal 
courthouse in American Samoa would likely be funded similarly. We found 
the data for scenarios 1 and 2 sufficiently reliable to provide rough 
estimates of the possible future costs for these scenarios for 
establishing a federal court in American Samoa, with limitations as 
noted. 

Data Limitations and Assumptions: 

Because the three court scenarios presented are hypothetical, and the 
exact details of the jurisdiction, staffing, and physical facilities 
would have to be determined when, and if, a specific scenario were 
adopted, the estimated costs cannot be aggregated to obtain a precise 
estimate of the total costs for the scenarios. Rather, the cost data 
should be viewed as general approximations of the types and magnitude 
of costs that could be incurred. Recognizing this uncertainty, we 
collected likely cost elements for each scenario, to the extent 
possible, from federal agencies that would be involved in establishing 
a federal court in American Samoa--GSA for construction and rental 
costs, AOUSC for judicial branch costs, and EOUSA and USMS for 
executive branch costs. 

We collected cost data for scenarios 1 and 2. According to AOUSC, under 
each of these scenarios a new courthouse would need to be built. We did 
not estimate costs for bankruptcy courts for either scenario, since, if 
the district court were to hear bankruptcy cases, it is likely that the 
district court judge would hear both federal matters and bankruptcy 
cases, similar to other district judges in CNMI, Guam, and USVI. We did 
not collect cost data for scenario 3 because, as stated earlier, it 
would be a unique judicial arrangement and there is no comparable 
existing federal court structure upon which to estimate costs. The cost 
data presented cannot be used for budget purposes and an analysis of 
cost effectiveness would be of limited value given that the data are 
fragmented. 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. Thus, policy considerations, other than cost 
effectiveness, are more likely to be the basis for deciding whether and 
how to establish a court with federal jurisdiction in American Samoa. 

Court Construction and Agency Rental Costs Would be Comparatively High: 

Due to limitations on existing buildings and potential land 
restrictions--about 90 percent of American Samoan land is communally 
owned--GSA officials told us that a new courthouse in American Samoa 
would likely use a build-to-suit lease construction arrangement rather 
than government-owned construction and that construction and consequent 
rental costs would be comparatively high. GSA provided initial 
construction and rental costs for the hypothetical courthouse in 
American Samoa, based on a floor plan submitted for a proposed new one- 
judge courthouse in CNMI. According to GSA officials, there are no 
buildings in American Samoa suitable for use as a federal courthouse. 
Further, officials from the High Court of American Samoa told us that 
its two-courtroom High Court building and its one-courtroom local 
district court building are frequently used to capacity. 

Under build-to-lease construction, the government contracts with a 
private developer to build the courthouse and, in this case, GSA leases 
the completed building based on the amortization of a 20-year 
construction loan. GSA would then rent portions of the building to the 
tenant federal agencies, such as AOUSC, EOUSA, and USMS. GSA officials 
gave very preliminary rent estimates of $80 to $90 per square foot, 
[Footnote 70] based on requirements similar to an existing build-to-
suit lease prospectus for a new courthouse in CNMI.[Footnote 71] 
Further, GSA officials told us that federal agencies would be 
responsible for up-front payments for the particular courthouse 
governmental features, such as holding cells, and blast protection for 
security.[Footnote 72] GSA officials indicate that the accuracy of the 
initial American Samoa court construction may vary by as much as -20 to 
+80 percent, thereby influencing rental costs. The GSA Assistant 
Regional Administrator for Region IX Pacific Rim stated that there are 
many factors that could affect construction costs and, therefore, the 
tenant agencies' rental costs. For example, any cost increases 
associated with the condition of an unknown site or escalation in 
construction costs beyond what has been anticipated will have a direct 
and proportional impact on the rental costs, as well as the up-front 
costs that agencies may be required to pay. 

Preliminary rental costs of $80 to $90 per square foot for a new 
courthouse with specialized building requirements would exceed typical 
federal government rental charges for offices in American Samoa at the 
prevailing market rates of $45 to $50 per rentable square foot in 2007. 

Judicial Branch Costs Include Judges, Court Staff, and Federal 
Defender: 

For scenarios 1 and 2, AOUSC officials provided information related to 
three types of costs: 

1. district court costs, 

2. probation and pretrial services costs, and: 

3. federal defender costs. 

Scenario 1 Costs: 

District court costs: For yearly district court costs under scenario 1, 
AOUSC provided us with district court cost estimates of about $1.5 
million for personnel costs, including the costs of one district court 
judge and the full-time equivalent salaries of 2 law clerks and 1 
secretary, 11 district clerk's office staff, 1 pro se law clerk, 
[Footnote 73] 1 court reporter, and recruitment and training costs. 
[Footnote 74] Operational costs were estimated at $0.1 million, which 
includes judge's law books, stationery, forms, new case assignment and 
jury management systems, travel, postage and delivery charges, and 
consumables for both the first year and recurring years. Information 
technology and other equipment costs were estimated at $0.1 million. 
Space and facilities costs ranged between $2.6 million to $2.9 million 
and include necessary alterations and renovations, signage, 
furnishings, furniture, and estimated GSA rental costs.[Footnote 75] 

Probation and pretrial services costs: For the yearly cost of probation 
and pretrial services, AOUSC provided us with personnel and benefits 
costs estimated at $0.3 million, which includes the full-time 
equivalent salaries of one Chief Probation Officer, one probation 
officer, and one administrative support staff. Operational costs were 
estimated at $0.1 million, including travel, training, transportation, 
postage, printing, maintenance, drug dependent offender testing and 
aftercare, pretrial drug testing, mental health treatment services, 
monitoring services, DNA testing, notices/advertising, contractual 
services, supplies, awards, firearms, and protective equipment. 
Information technology and other equipment costs were estimated at 
about $16,000 (i.e., equipment, maintenance, purchase of copy 
equipment, computer training, phone communications, supplies, 
computers, phones, data communications equipment, printers, scanner, 
and computer software).[Footnote 76] Space and facilities costs were 
estimated at $0.4 million to $0.5 million, which includes furniture and 
fixture purchases, as well as GSA rental costs.[Footnote 77] 

Federal Defender costs: AOUSC officials did not estimate costs for a 
Federal Defender's office, since it is unlikely that the hypothetical 
court in American Samoa would, at least initially, reach the minimum 
200 appointments per year required to authorize a Federal Defender 
Organization or the number of cases that would warrant the creation of 
a Federal Public Defender Organization headquartered in the District of 
Hawaii. The court in American Samoa, as an adjacent district, might be 
able to share the Federal Public Defender Organization staff based in 
Hawaii, or the court could rely solely on a CJA panel of attorneys. 
[Footnote 78] The costs to the Federal Public Defender Organization in 
Hawaii and the costs of reimbursing CJA attorneys would vary based on 
the caseload of the court. 

Scenario 2 Costs: 

District Court costs: According to AOUSC, the estimated district court 
costs for scenario 2 could be similar to the estimated costs for 
scenario 1. An AOUSC official indicated that there may not be a need 
for a clerk, financial/procurement officer, jury clerk, or information 
technology specialist in American Samoa under scenario 2, as those 
functions may be handled out of the District of Hawaii office, leading 
to some possible reductions in personnel salaries. However, some 
judicial officials stated that any decrease in staff costs for this 
scenario may be offset by increased costs for travel between Hawaii and 
American Samoa. GSA rental costs would be comparable to scenario 1. 

Probation and pretrial services costs: Probation and Pretrial Services 
officials did not provide any cost differences between scenarios 1 and 
2. 

Federal Defender costs: Either the Office of the Federal Public 
Defender in Hawaii or a CJA panel may provide defender services in 
American Samoa under both situations, thereby also not leading to any 
significant change in cost estimates between scenarios 1 and 2. 

Executive Branch Costs Include Federal Prosecution and Security Costs: 

For the Department of Justice, an EOUSA official provided U.S. 
Attorney's Office cost estimates and a USMS official provided security 
cost estimates for both scenario 1 and scenario 2. 

U.S. Attorney's Office Costs: 

Scenario 1 costs: EOUSA officials calculated the cost of a U.S. 
Attorney's office based on a partial first year and a complete second 
year. Modular personnel costs are $0.6 million for the first year and 
$1.0 million for the second year, which includes one U.S. Attorney, 
three attorneys, and two support staff. Operational costs ranged from 
$0.5 million to $0.9 million, including travel and transportation, 
utilities, advisory and assistance services, printing and reproduction, 
and supplies and materials.[Footnote 79] Information technology costs 
were estimated at $0.1 million for equipment and the operation and 
maintenance of equipment. Space and facilities costs range between $1.3 
million and $1.4 million and include the operation and maintenance of 
facilities and rent to GSA[Footnote 80] and others. 

Scenario 2 costs: EOUSA officials calculated U.S. Attorney's office 
personnel costs for a partial first year and a complete second year. 
Modular personnel costs rose from $0.6 million in the first year to 
$1.0 million throughout the second year, which includes four attorneys 
and two support staff. Operational costs remain consistent at $0.2 
million for both the first and second years, reflecting travel and 
transportation, litigation costs, supplies, and other miscellaneous 
costs. Information technology and equipment costs were estimated to be 
approximately $0.1 million for both years. Yearly rental rates may also 
be comparable in the initial years. Personnel and operations costs for 
scenario 2 were estimated to be less than for scenario 1 because 
scenario 2 does not include a separate U.S. Attorney for American 
Samoa. Rather, the costs for scenario 2 are based on the estimated 
costs and personnel the U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii would 
need to support cases that arise in American Samoa. 

U.S. Marshals Service Costs: 

Scenario 1 costs: USMS officials estimated that personnel costs were 
$0.8 million, based on fiscal year 2008 salaries, benefits, and law 
enforcement availability pay for all supervisory (one U.S. Marshal, one 
Chief Deputy, one Judicial Security Inspector) and nonsupervisory (two 
Deputy Marshals and one administrative) personnel that would be needed. 
[Footnote 81] Operational costs were estimated to be $0.8 million based 
on fiscal year 2008 standard, nonpersonnel costs for district 
operational and administrative positions (including vehicles, weapons, 
protective gear, communications equipment, and operational travel 
costs), and $0.7 million for defendant transport (including guard 
wages, airfare, per diem meals, and lodging).[Footnote 82] Information 
technology and equipment costs were estimated at $0.6 million for the 
installation of a computer network and telephone system to all USMS 
offices, and $0.2 million for yearly service on the wide-area network 
to American Samoa.[Footnote 83] Space and facilities costs were 
estimated between $1.1 million and $1.3 million for rent,[Footnote 84] 
plus variable defendant detention facility housing costs.[Footnote 85] 

Scenario 2 costs: With regard to scenario 2, USMS officials estimated 
that yearly personnel costs would be $0.5 million. Since a U.S. 
Marshal, Chief Deputy, and Judicial Security Officer would be shared 
with the USMS in Hawaii and not be located in American Samoa, personnel 
costs for this scenario are estimated to be approximately $0.4 million 
less than scenario 1. Operational costs (reflecting the standard, 
nonpersonnel costs for operational and administrative positions) under 
scenario 2 were estimated to be $0.5 million, or about $0.3 million 
less than scenario 1. The operational cost differential between the two 
scenarios with respect to prisoner transport is unclear.[Footnote 86] 
While the USMS did not specifically address information technology 
costs and other equipment costs with respect to scenario 2, the same 
types of costs in scenario 1 would be involved if a computer network 
and telephone system would need to be established. With respect to 
space and facilities, if the USMS were housed in the same court 
building as used for scenario 1, rental costs should be comparable 
(between $1.1 million and $1.3 million.) If, however, under scenario 2, 
the USMS were housed in an office building rather than a courthouse, 
then the resulting cost may be lower than scenario 1. Additionally, to 
the extent that defendants are detained in the same facilities as in 
scenario 1 (e.g., the Bureau of Prisons detention facility in Hawaii), 
detention facility costs should be comparable. 

Potential Funding Sources Associated with Implementing the Different 
Scenarios: 

Funding for the federal judiciary and DOJ agencies derives primarily 
from direct congressional appropriations to each agency and funding for 
a federal court in American Samoa would likely be funded similarly. In 
fiscal year 2006, about 94 percent of the total court salary and 
expense obligations were obtained through direct judiciary funding. The 
remaining 6 percent was obtained through offsetting collections, such 
as fees. In that same year, about 95 percent of the total Probation and 
Pretrial Services obligations were obtained through direct 
congressional appropriations. 

With regard to DOJ, in fiscal year 2006, 96 percent of the U.S. 
Attorneys' obligations to support district court activities were 
obtained through direct congressional appropriations and the remaining 
4 percent were obtained through other sources, such as asset 
forfeitures. In fiscal year 2008, USMS used direct congressional 
appropriations to cover the expenses for staff hiring, payroll, 
relocation, personnel infrastructure, rent, and utilities. The Office 
of the Federal Detention Trustee funds 100 percent of prisoner 
detention, meals, medical care, and transportation. AOUSC funds 100 
percent of the court security officers, magnetometers, and security 
measures at courthouse entrances. 

Concluding Observations: 

We are not making recommendations regarding whether the current system 
and structure for adjudicating matters of federal law in American Samoa 
should be changed. Also, given the multiple limitations on available 
cost data, we are not making any determinations as to whether the 
current system is more or less costly than the different scenarios for 
change presented in this report. Rather, our purpose in reporting the 
issues has been to provide decision makers with information regarding 
the issues associated with potential scenarios for change. 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. 

Madame Chairwoman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the 
Subcommittee may have at this time. 

[End of section] 

Attachment I: 

Table 1: Description of Scenarios for Establishing a Federal Court in 
American Samoa or Expanding the Federal Jurisdiction of the High Court 
of American Samoa: 

Structure: 
Scenario 1: Federal court modeled on other federal courts in U.S. 
territories; 
Scenario 2: District court in American Samoa that is a division of the 
District of Hawaii; 
Scenario 3: Unique arrangement granting the High Court federal criminal 
jurisdiction as well as expanded federal civil jurisdiction. 

Judge and court staff: 
Scenario 1: Article IV judge in American Samoa with court clerk and 
support staff; Judge appointed by President with advice and consent of 
the Senate; 
Scenario 2: Article IV or Article III judge in American Samoa with 
court clerk and support staff; Judge appointed by President with advice 
and consent of the Senate; 
Scenario 3: High Court Justices would hear additional federal matters; 
Additional judge may be required, who may be appointed by the Secretary 
of the Interior or, as with other federal judges, by the President, 
with advice and consent of the Senate. 

U.S. Attorney: 
Scenario 1: One resident U.S. Attorney with three staff attorneys and 
support staff; 
Scenario 2: Share U.S. Attorney with District of Hawaii and staff a 
satellite office with one Assistant U.S. Attorney, three staff 
attorneys, and support staff; 
Scenario 3: May use a federal prosecutor and/or local Attorney General. 

Defender Services: 
Scenario 1: Shared federal Public defender with District of Hawaii 
(using staff based in Hawaii)[A] and/or CJA Panel[B]; 
Scenario 2: Shared federal Public defender with District of Hawaii 
(using staff based in Hawaii)[ A] and/or CJA Panel[B]; 
Scenario 3: Under current law, federal defender services are not 
provided unless within a judicial district. May be able to use a local 
public defender. 

U.S. Marshals Service: 
Scenario 1: One U.S. Marshal, one chief deputy, one judicial security 
inspector, two deputy marshals, and one administrative staff; 
Scenario 2: Share U.S. Marshal with Hawaii and staff a satellite office 
with supervisory deputy marshal, two deputy marshals, and one 
administrative staff; 
Scenario 3: Federal detention and security requirements may not apply. 
May be able to use a local marshal or law enforcement staff. 

Probation and Pretrial Services: 
Scenario 1: One chief probation officer, one probation officer and one 
administrative staff in American Samoa with shared staff in District of 
Hawaii for additional support; 
Scenario 2: One chief probation officer, one probation officer and one 
administrative staff in American Samoa with shared staff in District of 
Hawaii for additional support; 
Scenario 3: Under current law, federal Probation and Pretrial services 
are not provided unless within a judicial district. 

Facilities: 
Scenario 1: New courthouse facility would be needed that can house 
judge, court staff, U.S. Attorney staff, U.S. Marshal staff, and 
holding facility. Unclear whether new federal detention center would be 
needed or whether a portion of the existing local prison could be 
upgraded; 
Scenario 2: New courthouse facility would be needed that can house 
judge, court staff, U.S. Attorney staff, U.S. Marshal staff, and 
holding facility. Unclear whether new federal detention center would be 
needed or whether a portion of the existing local prison could be 
upgraded; 
Scenario 3: Federal court requirements may not apply. May be able to 
use existing High Court or District Court facilities. Unclear whether a 
new prison would be needed or whether a portion of the existing prison 
could be upgraded. 

Jurisdiction: 
Scenario 1: May be jurisdiction of district court and bankruptcy court, 
or may be more limited; 
Scenario 2: May be jurisdiction of district court and bankruptcy court, 
or may be more limited; 
Scenario 3: Limited jurisdiction, which may grow over time. 

Appeals: 
Scenario 1: Appeals to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; 
Scenario 2: Same as District of Hawaii (appeals to U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit); 
Scenario 3: It is unclear whether and to which tribunal High Court 
decisions would be appealed. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws. 

[A] According to Federal Public Defender officials, it is unlikely that 
a court in American Samoa would reach the minimum 200 appointments per 
year required to appoint a Federal Public Defender in American Samoa. 

[B] U.S. district courts, with the approval of the judicial council of 
the circuit, must have a plan for furnishing representation for any 
person financially unable to obtain adequate representation. Under this 
plan, a judge can appoint counsel from a federal defender organization 
authorized by the court or a panel of attorneys designated or approved 
by the court--called a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel--to furnish 
legal representation for those defendants who are financially unable to 
obtain counsel. 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3006A. Where a federal defender 
organization is established, the CJA provides that panel attorneys be 
appointed in a substantial proportion of the cases (defined by 
guidelines as approximately 25 percent of the appointments annually in 
a district). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Attachment II: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

For further information about this statement, please contact William O. 
Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-7777 or [email protected]. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this statement. Staff making key contributions to 
this statement were Christopher Conrad, Assistant Director, Nancy 
Kawahara, and Tracey King. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For purposes of this testimony, we discuss four insular areas-- 
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which are all jurisdictions under U.S. 
sovereignty. In this testimony, we sometimes refer to American Samoa as 
a U.S. territory, although there has not been enacted an organic act, 
which would define its relationship to the United States. 

[2] H.R. 4711, 109th Cong. (2006). 

[3] Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint 
Legislative Public Hearing on the Issues of Federal District Court 
Authorization Transfer of Constitution Review Authority (Pago Pago, 
American Samoa: Feb. 23-24, 2006). These hearings were conducted in the 
Samoan language and translated into English. 

[4] GAO, American Samoa: Issues Associated with Potential Changes to 
the Current System for Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-655] (Washington, D.C.: June 
27, 2008). 

[5] The district courts in U.S. insular areas are Article IV courts, as 
they were established pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, 
which provides that "the Congress shall have power to dispose of and 
make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
other property belonging to the United Statesï¿½." Because Article I of 
the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress has power "to constitute 
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," and because many tribunals 
established by Congress were created pursuant to Article I, district 
courts in U.S. insular areas are also sometimes called Article I 
courts. 

[6] This estimate includes U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and 
foreigners. Neither the U.S. Census Bureau nor the American Samoa 
Department of Commerce provides data on the number of all U.S. citizens 
in American Samoa. In 2000, U.S. Census Bureau data indicated that 
about 32,470 of the total population of 57,291 were born in American 
Samoa, and thus U.S. nationals. However, the Census Bureau data do not 
report the number of U.S. nationals who have become U.S. citizens. 

[7] A U.S. national is either a citizen or someone who "owes permanent 
allegiance to the United States." 8 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1101(a)(21), (22). 
Citizenship is derived either from the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United 
States") or from a specific statute that confers citizenship on the 
inhabitants of an area that, although not a state, is under the 
sovereignty of the United States. No such legislation conferring 
citizenship has been enacted for American Samoa. 

[8] Samoan matai signed the Cession of Tutuila and Aunu'u in 1900 and 
the Cession of Manu'a Islands in 1904. Later, in 1925, the U.S. 
acquired Swain's Island. 43 Stat. 1357 (1925). 

[9] 45 Stat. 1253 (1929) (codified at 48 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1661). 

[10] 48 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1661(c); Exec. Order No. 10,264, 16 Fed. Reg. 6419 
(1951). 

[11] 48 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1662a. 

[12] The Governor may serve two consecutive 4-year terms but is only 
eligible for a third term after one full term has intervened. Am. Samoa 
Code Ann. ï¿½ 4.0107. 

[13] Am. Samoa Const. art. III; Am. Samoa Code Ann. tit. 3. 

[14] In 2006, the High Court of American Samoa had a total of 607 cases 
filed, which included 162 criminal cases, 112 civil actions, 15 
appellate cases, 11 matai (chief) title cases, and 27 land cases. The 
family, drug, and alcohol division had a total of 21 cases. 

[15] In 2006, the district court of American Samoa had a total of 7,689 
cases filed. 

[16] The Chief Justice and Associate Justice may be removed by the 
Secretary of the Interior for cause. The district and associate judges 
may be removed by the Chief Justice for cause. 

[17] See Am. Samoa Const. art. III, ï¿½ 3; Am. Samoa Code Ann. ï¿½ 3.0220. 
Three justices and two associate judges are needed for an appellate 
division session. According to a judicial official, since at least one 
of the justices has been involved with the lower court trial that 
justice cannot sit on the appeals. Therefore, federal judges travel to 
American Samoa to sit on appellate division sessions, which are held 
about once a year. 

[18] The primary categories of land in American Samoa are freehold 
land, individually owned native land, and family-owned communal land. 
Freehold land, or lands included in court grants prior to 1900, may be 
alienated to a person who has less than one-half native blood. However, 
individually owned land and communal land, which is theoretically under 
the control of the matai (or chiefs), may be alienated only to persons 
with more than one-half native blood, and such land may be alienated to 
a person with any nonnative blood only if the person (1) was born in 
American Samoa, (2) is a descendant of a Samoan family, (3) lives with 
Samoans as a Samoan, (4) has lived in American Samoa for more than 5 
years, and (5) has officially declared an intention to remain in 
American Samoa for life. The alienation of communal land also requires 
the consent of the Governor. Am. Samoa Code Ann. ï¿½ 37.0204. 

[19] There have been three political status study commissions created 
in American Samoa to study alternative forms of future political status 
open to American Samoa. The first commission report was completed in 
1970 and submitted to the American Samoa Legislature; the second report 
was published by the Office of the Delegate at Large to Washington D.C. 
in 1975; and the third report was published in January 2007 and 
presented to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of 
government. 

[20] Final Report, The Future Political Status Study Commission of 
American Samoa (Jan. 2, 2007). An unorganized territory is one for 
which the federal government has not provided self-government by 
enacting an organic act or mutual agreement, such as a covenant. An 
unincorporated territory is one that has not become fully incorporated 
into the United States. 

[21] American Samoa White Collar Crime Assessment, a Special Report to 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Justice and 
American Samoa Government (December 1994, redacted version). 

[22] H.R. 4711,109th Cong. (2006). 

[23] Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the judicial 
power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and 
in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain 
and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, 
shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated 
times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be 
diminished during their continuance in office." 

[24] A U.S. magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district 
court and is appointed by majority vote of the district judges of the 
court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by a statute as 
well as those delegated by the district judges. A full-time magistrate 
judge serves a term of 8 years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by 
district court judges vary from court to court. Magistrate judges may 
handle certain pre-trial and post trial matters, as well as jury or 
nonjury civil trials with the consent of the parties and misdemeanor 
trials with the consent of the parties. District judges must preside 
over cases involving felony charges. 

[25] Pub. L. No. 95-157, 91 Stat. 1265 (1977); Covenant to Establish a 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with 
the United States of America, Pub. L. No. 94-241, ï¿½ 401, 90 Stat. 263 
(1976). 

[26] Pub. L. No. 630, 64 Stat. 384 (1950). 

[27] Pub. L. No. 749, ï¿½ï¿½ 28, 29, 49 Stat. 1807, 1814 (1936). 

[28] Federal law provides that the district court has concurrent 
jurisdiction with the local courts over local offenses that are "of the 
same or similar character or part of, or based on, the same act or 
transaction or two or more acts or transactions connected together or 
constituting part of a common scheme or plan, if such act or 
transaction or acts or transactions also constitutes or constitute an 
offense or offenses against one or more statute over which the District 
Court of the Virgin Islands has jurisdictionï¿½." 48 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1612(c). As 
such, if an individual engages in conduct that violates both federal 
law and local law, that individual may be charged with both the federal 
and local offense in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. For 
example, if an individual, while engaged in the trafficking of 
firearms, kills another person with premeditation, that individual may 
be charged in the District Court of the Virgin Islands with both the 
federal offense of firearms trafficking and the local offense of 
murder. 

[29] The original jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts is provided in 
federal law and includes, for example, federal question jurisdiction, 
which is jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the U.S. 
Constitution, an act of Congress, or a treaty, and diversity 
jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over civil cases filed based on the 
"diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as between citizens 
of different states or between U.S. citizens and those of another 
country, in which the matter in controversy has a sum or value that 
exceeds $75,000. 

[30] In 2004, 7 years before the expiration of the 15 years after the 
establishment of the Supreme Court of Guam, Congress repealed the 
provision providing the Ninth Circuit with temporary appellate 
jurisdiction over decisions of the Supreme Court of Guam. Pub. L. No. 
108-378, ï¿½ 2, 118 Stat. 2206, 2208 (2004). 

[31] See U.S. Const. art. III, ï¿½ 2 ("Trial shall be held in the State 
where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed 
within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the 
Congress may by Law have directed"). 

[32] United States v. Lee, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 2001). 

[33] 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3238. With respect to a federal criminal offense 
committed by an American Samoan within one of the federal judicial 
districts, rather than within American Samoa, venue is proper in the 
judicial district where the crime was committed pursuant to federal 
law. 

[34] United States v. Lee, 472 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2006). 

[35] Although venue for most cases arising in American Samoa has been 
established pursuant to the "first brought" statute, venue may 
otherwise be proper in a district in which part of the offense was 
committed. For example, in United States v. Ofoia, eight residents of 
American Samoa were charged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle 
District of Georgia with defrauding AFLAC, which is headquartered in 
Georgia. United States v. Ofoia, No. 4:03-cr-011 (M.D. Ga. filed Feb. 
28, 2003). 

[36] For example, in the District of Hawaii, the Criminal Section of 
DOJ's Civil Rights Division prosecuted several individuals involved in 
a sex trafficking operation in American Samoa. United States v. Kuo, 
No. 1:06-cr-524 (D. Haw. filed Oct. 4, 2006); United States v. Kuo, No. 
1:07-cr-225 (D. Haw. filed May 10, 2007). In the District of Columbia, 
the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ's Criminal Division initiated 
proceedings against two government officials in American Samoa, 
charging, among other things, fraud and bribery. United States v. 
Sunia, No. 1:07-cr-225 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 6, 2007). 

[37] See 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1391. 

[38] See, e.g., Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel, 637 F. Supp. 1398 (D.D.C. 1986), 
aff'd by 830 F.2d 374 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Majhor v. Kempthorne, 518 F. 
Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2007). 

[39] A bankruptcy court is an operating unit of the district court. 

[40] Maritime law is the body of law governing maritime commerce and 
navigation, the transportation at sea of persons and property, and 
marine affairs in general. 

[41] See 46 U.S.C. ï¿½ 30511; 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1404(a). For example, in a 2003 
maritime case, a plaintiff filed actions based on the same incident in 
both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 
and the High Court of American Samoa. 7 Am. Samoa 3d 139 (2003). 

[42] GAO, American Samoa: Inadequate Management and Oversight 
Contribute to Financial Problems, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-92-64] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 1992). U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, American 
Samoa: Top Leadership Commitment Needed to Break the Cycle of Fiscal 
Crisis, Report No. P-IN-AMS-0117-2003 (Washington, D.C.: September 
2005). 

[43] In March 1993, Governor Richard Lutali of American Samoa wrote a 
letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to request 
that, pursuant to 48 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1666, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) agents and a DOJ prosecutor be detailed to the American Samoa 
Government to investigate and prosecute public integrity and other 
white-collar crimes. 

[44] Department of Justice, American Samoa White Collar Crime 
Assessment: A Special Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
U.S. Department of Justice and American Samoa Government, (December 
1994, redacted version). 

[45] Statement of A.P. Lutali, Governor of American Samoa, accompanied 
by Malaetasi M. Togafau, Attorney General, and R. Wendell Harwell, 
Territorial Auditor, before the House Resources Subcommittee on Native 
American and Insular Affairs, Hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice 
Assessment on White Collar Crime in American Samoa (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 3, 1995). 

[46] Pacific Islands Committee of the Judicial Council of the Ninth 
Circuit, Report of the Pacific Islands Committee on Federal 
Jurisdiction in American Samoa (Aug. 23, 1995) and Supplemental Report 
of the Pacific Islands Committee, American Samoa Legislation (Dec. 15, 
1995). 

[47] The jurisdiction was limited to civil and criminal proceedings 
that were (1) brought by the United States or an officer or an agency 
thereof arising under the laws of the United States or seeking to 
collect a debt pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act 
of 1990, or (2) designated to transmit requests for international 
judicial assistance arising from foreign judicial proceedings pursuant 
to treaties or other international agreements to which the United 
States is a party and which extend to American Samoa. 

[48] See United States v. Lee, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 2001). 

[49] United States. v. Kelemete, No. 1:06-cr-116 (D. Haw. filed Mar. 1, 
2006). 

[50] Recipients that expend $500,000 or more a year in federal awards 
under more than one federal program are required by the Single Audit 
Act to undergo a single audit. Single audits are audits of the 
recipient organization--the government in the case of insular areas-- 
that focus on the recipient's internal controls and its compliance with 
laws and regulations governing federal awards. 31 U.S.C. ï¿½ 7501-7507; 
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, 
Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. 

[51] GAO, American Samoa: Accountability for Key Federal Grants Needs 
Improvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-41] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2004). 

[52] GAO, U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial 
Accountability Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-119] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2006). 

[53] A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination 
of significant deficiencies, that result in more than a remote 
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements 
will not be prevented or detected. A significant deficiency is a 
control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that 
adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, 
process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote 
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements 
that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. 

[54] There is also some legal uncertainty about the current ability of 
federal judges to issue search warrants for property in American Samoa 
because it is outside of a federal judicial district. A proposed change 
to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to be effective in December 
2008, would authorize a magistrate judge in a district in which 
activities related to the crime under investigation may have occurred 
or in the District of Columbia to issue a search warrant for property 
in American Samoa. 

[55] Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint 
Legislative Public Hearing (Feb. 23-24, 2006). 

[56] American Samoa code provides that a person charged with an offense 
carrying a maximum punishment of over 6 months of imprisonment shall be 
tried by a jury unless he personally waives this right in writing or in 
open court. The law also provides that the petit jury shall be 
comprised of six persons, the jury verdict must be unanimous, and voir 
dire of prospective jurors shall be conducted by the court. Am. Samoa 
Code Ann. ï¿½ 3.0232. 

[57] Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint 
Legislative Public Hearing (Feb. 23-24, 2006). 

[58] The ethnic limitations apply to communal lands and individually 
owned native lands, but not freehold lands. 

[59] Letter from the Secretary of Samoan Affairs, American Samoa 
Government, to GAO, dated October 12, 2007. 

[60] 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1861-1878. 

[61] A federal law enforcement official suggested that rather than 
establishing a federal court in American Samoa, one option would be to 
designate the U.S. District Court of Hawaii as the proper venue for 
federal cases arising in American Samoa and provide the U.S. District 
Court of Hawaii with additional resources to handle such cases. As 
such, cases arising in American Samoa would be heard by district judges 
and juries in Hawaii. 

[62] At that same time, the Judicial Conference of the United States' 
position was that if Congress determined to establish federal judicial 
jurisdiction in American Samoa, and to commit sufficient resources to 
create such jurisdiction, the conference would endorse the creation of 
an Article I district court in American Samoa. 

[63] Federal Public Defender officials we met with said that it is 
unlikely that a court in American Samoa would reach the minimum 200 
appointments per year required to appoint a Federal Public Defender in 
American Samoa. In addition, these officials also indicated that it is 
unlikely that, under the CJA provision that adjacent districts may 
aggregate their appointments to establish eligibility, there would be a 
sufficient CJA caseload to support opening of a staffed branch office 
of the Federal Public Defender Organization (headquartered in Honolulu, 
Hawaii) in American Samoa. In the past, the Federal Public Defender in 
Hawaii has represented defendants from American Samoa when brought to 
trial in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. 

[64] U.S. district courts, with the approval of the judicial council of 
the circuit, must have a plan for furnishing representation for any 
person financially unable to obtain adequate representation. Under this 
plan, a judge can appoint counsel from a federal defender organization 
authorized by the court or a panel of attorneys designated or approved 
by the court--called a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel--to furnish 
legal representation for those defendants who are financially unable to 
obtain counsel. 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3006A. Where a federal defender 
organization is established, the CJA provides that panel attorneys be 
appointed in a substantial proportion of the cases (defined by 
guidelines as approximately 25 percent of the appointments annually in 
a district). 

[65] The Pacific Islands Committee is a standing committee of the 
Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit with an indefinite liaison 
responsibility to the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on 
Federal-State Jurisdiction. The Pacific Islands Committee fulfills the 
oversight responsibilities of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council and 
the Judicial Conference of the United States with respect to the 
judiciaries of the territories and former trust territories in the 
Pacific, including American Samoa. The specific responsibilities 
include assisting in the development and provision for continuing 
judicial education and court professional training, improvement of the 
administration of justice in the courts of the northern Pacific, and 
oversight responsibility for judicial education grants from the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. 

[66] Although case filings may grow over time, if the case filings in a 
district court for American Samoa were similar to those in Guam and 
CNMI, they would be fairly small. For example, according to the 
Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, 2007 Annual Report of the 
Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts, 38 civil and 
169 criminal cases were filed in Guam in fiscal year 2007. For the same 
period in CNMI, 47 civil and 28 criminal cases were filed. By 
comparison, the District of Wyoming had the lowest total case filings 
of any district in the 50 states in fiscal year 2007, with 289 civil 
and 312 criminal filings. 

[67] American Samoa would have to be a separate division within the 
U.S. District Court of Hawaii as a means to maintain separate jury 
pools between American Samoa and Hawaii. 

[68] 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3231. 

[69] 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3001, 3002(2). 

[70] This rental cost was based on an estimated cost of construction of 
approximately $56 million, assuming a 20-year amortization of the 
investment. 

[71] The housing plan, developed for the proposed new CNMI courthouse 
for fiscal year 2009, includes about 68,000 rentable square feet for 
one courtroom, judge's chambers, and office space for the district 
court operations, U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, and USMS. 

[72] OMB Circular A-11, Appendix B requires that federal agencies fund, 
with up-front payments, the cost of inherently governmental features of 
the space they lease. 

[73] Pro se law clerks assist judges in the management of cases filed 
by litigants representing themselves. 

[74] Because reliable estimates of the number of civil and criminal 
cases were not known, AOUSC officials based their estimates on the 
actual costs obligated in 2007 for the District Court of the Northern 
Mariana Islands. Further, AOUSC officials stated that some district 
court costs may vary by caseload. 

[75] GSA officials estimated that a courthouse in American Samoa would 
require about 32,000 rentable square feet, based on GSA's build-to-suit 
lease prospectus developed for a new courthouse in CNMI. 

[76] Because the number of civil and criminal cases was unknown, AOUSC 
officials based their personnel and benefits and operational and 
information technology cost estimates on a percentage of the actual 
costs obligated in 2007 from the Probation and Pretrial Services Office 
in Guam, which is a consolidated operation covering both district 
courts located in CNMI and Guam. AOSUC officials determined the 
percentage of resources used to support the District Court for the 
Northern Mariana Islands as a basis for the estimate of costs for an 
office in American Samoa. 

[77] GSA estimated that probation and pretrial services would need 
about 5,500 rentable square feet for its operations in American Samoa, 
based on the CNMI build-to-suit lease prospectus. 

[78] See 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3006A. 

[79] Because reliable estimates of the number of criminal and civil 
cases for American Samoa were not known, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
nonpersonnel cost data for scenario 1 were estimated based on fiscal 
year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 obligation data for the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the District of Guam. This is a small U.S. Attorney's Office 
and is responsible for the federal district courts in CNMI and Guam. 
EOUSA officials told us that CNMI district court obligations could not 
be separated out from Guam obligation data. 

[80] GSA estimated that the U.S. Attorney's Office would need about 
15,800 rentable square feet for its operations in American Samoa, based 
on the CNMI build-to-suit lease prospectus. 

[81] Additionally, USMS indicated that it may be necessary to pay 
incentive bonuses to attract personnel to American Samoa, as well as 
permanent change of duty station relocation costs. 

[82] Cost data are partially based on prisoner transportation costs in 
the USMS office in Guam. 

[83] If radio towers and supporting radio infrastructure do not already 
exist in American Samoa, then USMS officials said this may result in 
additional costs. 

[84] Based on GSA's proposed CNMI courthouse floor plan, USMS would be 
allocated 13,935 rentable square feet. If rent ranged from $80 to $90 
per square foot, USMS' rent could range between $1.1 and $1.3 million. 

[85] If federal defendants were detained pretrial at the Bureau of 
Prisons' detention facility in Hawaii, there is no charge to USMS for 
housing. Given the capacity of this facility, USMS officials told us 
that it may be able to absorb any American Samoan defendants. If 
necessary, other detention facilities have been available for use 
(e.g., the San Bernardino County, California jail, the Agana, Guam 
detention facility, CNMI Department of Corrections, and Guam 
Penitentiary). Assuming up to 50 American Samoan defendants in USMS 
custody per year, for an average of 60 days each, the cost of housing 
at these facilities may range up to $0.2 million based on fiscal year 
2007 costs. 

[86] Defendant transportation costs may vary depending upon the number 
of court productions required. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 


Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***