Government of American Samoa exists solely by the authority of United States, and American Samoa is governed under authority of Congress.Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

Congress has delegated all powers of governance of American Samoa, including the power to tax, to the President.Mahoney v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.2d 74 (Trial Div. 1985).

Since Congress has entrusted the governance of this Territory to the Department of the Interior, which has approved the Territory’s Constitution and all the laws promulgated under it, there is no need for special Congressional authorization of the power to tax.Mahoney v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.2d 74 (Trial Div. 1985).

American Samoa’s constitution was promulgated under the authority of Congress and the President of the United States, as delegated to the Secretary of the Interior.Revised Const. Of American Samoa, Preamble and art. V, § 11 (1967).Alamoana Recipe, Inc., v. American Samoa Gov’t, 25 A.S.R.2d 97.

The High Court of American Samoa is not a federal court.American Samoa Gov’t v. Leiataua, 27 A.S.R.2d 26.

The Cession of Tutuila and Aunu`u (April 17, 1900) and the American Samoa Revised Constitution create a government duty to protect American Samoan land only when it is taken from American Samoans and given to foreigners.Timu v. McMoore, 6 A.S.R.3d 41 (App. Div. 2002).

The federal Constitution applies in American Samoa only insofar as its tenets restate those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights that are the basis of all free government.Purcell v. Seugogo, 6 A.S.R.3d 276 (Trial Div. 2002).

§ 1(2)—Territorial Status

Although not supreme, independent, or sovereign, American Samoa has a different relationship with the Union than the states, with a number of attendant advantages and disadvantages.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

Under its “unorganized and unincorporated” status, American Samoa is not part of the federal system and is not intended for incorporation.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the territorial clause, provides Congress with plenary powers to legislate for the territories.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

Congress’s power to legislate for the territories is limited only by the U.S. Constitution, and not by any laws of the territories themselves.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

Those territorial laws which are inconsistent with applicable United States laws, violate the Territory’s Constitution.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 1(3)—Applicable Laws

Portions of common law of England (including such acts of parliament as are applicable) which were in force at time of American Revolution, became part of jurisprudence of United States and have taken effect in American Samoa by provision of Code.Talo v. Poi, 2 A.S.R. 9.

Statute adopts common law of England as applied and modified by U.S. courts at time statute adopted and since construed.R.C.A.S. 1.0101, 3. Tung v. Ah Sam, 4 A.S.R. 764.

Federal constitution would not prohibit American Samoan hiring preference, which is reasonably calculated to alleviate the difficulties that attend a government composed largely of officials with no knowledge of the local language and culture and who generally remain in the territory only temporarily.Banks v. American Samoa Government, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

In “unincorporated” territories the federal constitution applies only insofar as its tenets restate “those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights” that are “the basis of all free government” or insofar as Congress expressly extends a particular constitutional provision to the territory.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

Although the due process clause of the federal constitution, which implicitly forbids racial discrimination by the federal government, binds the territories in at least some of its applications, it does not necessarily bind the territories in the same ways and to the same extent as in the continental United States.U.S. Const. amdt. 14.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

Federal constitutional requirement that “citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” applies to states and not to unincorporated and unorganized territories.U.S. Const. art. IV § 2.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

Federal civil rights laws do not operate to extend into territories those applications of the federal constitution that would not apply in the territories under the doctrine of the Insular Cases.42 U.S.C. § 1983.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

Territories are not “states” within meaning of fourteenth amendment, so Congress acted under its constitutional power to regulate territories when it revised civil rights statute to include territories.U.S. Const. art. IV § 3; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Extension of remedial civil rights statute to territories was premised initially on the concept, unjustifiable as applied to modern American Samoa, of territories as “inchoate states”.42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Government, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Applicability of remedial civil rights statute to American Samoa does not extend application in territory of any federal constitutional provisions that would not otherwise apply under the doctrine of the Insular Cases.42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Right to effective assistance of counsel applies in American Samoa.Am. Samoa Rev. Const. art I, § 6; A.S.C.A. §§ 46.0502, 46.1001.Suisala v. Moaali’itele, 6 A.S.R.2d 15.

Absent waiver of sovereign immunity or consent to suit, action for damages under civil rights law may not be maintained against any of the several states.42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

In territories not intended for incorporation into the United States, the federal constitution applies only insofar as its tenets restate fundamental limitations that are the basis of all free government.American Samoa Gov’t v. Macomber, 8 A.S.R.2d 182.

Extent to which the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies in the territory of American Samoa is unclear.U.S. Const. amdt. 14.Macomber v. American Samoa Gov’t, 12 A.S.R.2d 29.

American Samoa is an unorganized, unincorporated territory; accordingly, the federal Constitution applies here only insofar as its tenets restate “those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights” that are “the basis of all free government,” or which have been specifically made applicable by Act of Congress.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

When a conflict arises, Samoan custom must give way to the laws of the United States and American Samoa.A.S.C.A. § 1.0202.Taeleifi v. Willis, 21 A.S.R.2d 118.

Territorial laws which are inconsistent with applicable U.S. laws violate the territorial constitution, which in turn was promulgated under the authority of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. II, § 1(a), Art. V, § 11.Alamoana Recipe Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 24 A.S.R.2d 156.

The High Court may interpret territorial statutes differently than federal courts’ interpretations of similar, but not identical, federal statutes, but this does not imply that territorial law supersedes federal law.Alamoana Recipe Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 24 A.S.R.2d 156.

Federal laws need not be passed by the American Samoa legislature, since Congress has the constitutional power to make rules and regulations for the territories, pursuant to U.S. Const. art. VI, and the federal Constitution and laws are the supreme law of the land, pursuant to U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3.Alamoana Recipe, Inc., v. American Samoa Gov’t, 25 A.S.R.2d 97.

Under the Deeds of Cession between the chiefs of Eastern Samoa and the United States, all vestiges of sovereignty passed from former to the latter.Alamoana Recipe, Inc., v. American Samoa Gov’t, 25 A.S.R.2d 97.

Federal financial privacy laws contained in 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq., apply only to agencies and officials of the United States Government.American Samoa Gov’t v. Leiataua, 27 A.S.R.2d 26.

To the extent the U.S. Constitution would deprive ASG of the ability to search the luggage of persons entering American Samoa, it is inapplicable in American Samoa.This situation is the kind where rights which may be fundamental in the United States would tend to be destructive to the traditional culture.A.S.G. v. Pu`aa, 31 A.S.R.2d 73.

Those territorial laws which are inconsistent with applicable United States laws, violate the Territory’s Constitution.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 1(4)—Treaties

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution sometimes requires that courts exclude evidence where such is explicitly commanded by a treaty or an executive agreement.American Samoa Gov’t v. Enoka, 5 A.S.R.3d 81 (Trial Div. 2001).

Because the Vienna Convention is a ratified treaty, its provisions must be regarded as supreme.American Samoa Gov’t v. Enoka, 5 A.S.R.3d 81 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 2Separation of Powers

SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 4 – SEPARATION OF POWERS

Since courts favor constitutionality of statutes, courts will construe Industrial Incentive Act as not giving Governor power to grant partial exemptions in which case it is constitutional.Bottling Corporation of Samoa v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 499.

Constitution provides that each house of Legislature shall be judge of qualifications of its members.(Const., Art. 22)Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.

Court rule providing for criminal prosecution by petition contravenes statute and usurps discretionary function of executive branch, thereby violating constitutionally mandated separation of powers.Lutali v. Pereira, 1 A.S.R.2d 58 (Trial Div. 1981).

By making it easier for the legislature to supervise the quasi-legislative activities of the executive branch, a territorial statute providing for “legislative veto” enhanced the diffusion of power among the different branches of government.A.S.C.A. § 37.2030.Tuika Tuika v. Governor of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.2d 85.

Territorial statute providing for a “legislative veto” of leases of government land did not violate American Samoa Constitution. A.S.C.A. § 37.2030; Rev. Const’n of Am. Samoa art. II §§ 9 & 10. Tuika Tuika v. Governor of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.2d 85.

Where court had ordered that prisoner not be allowed to leave correctional facility without permission of the court except for emergency medical treatment, prison officials had no authority to allow prisoner to appear in court for post conviction motions without requesting permission of court. American Samoa Gov’t v. Masaniai, 5 A.S.R.2d 152.

Territorial statute requiring the Governor to submit to the Fono for possible disapproval any lease of land lasting over ten years was not legislation “affecting the powers of the legislature” requiring the prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior. A.S.C.A. § 37.2030.American Samoa Gov’t v. Tuika Tuika, 6 A.S.R.2d 58.

Territorial government is bound by court orders in proceedings to which it is a party and should not issue legal opinions that counsel disobedience to such orders.American Samoa Gov’t v. Satele, 7 A.S.R.2d 154.

Statute explicitly recognizing power of Chief Justice to make exceptions to rules is clearly not inconsistent with constitutional provision for judicial independence.Rev’d Const. Am. Samoa art. III § 2; A.S.C.A. § 46.0501.American Samoa Gov’t v. Tile, 8 A.S.R.2d 120.

Reasonable legislative regulation of judicial procedure does not necessarily conflict with judicial independence.Rev’d Const. Am. Samoa art. III § 2; A.S.C.A. § 46.0501.American Samoa Gov’t v. Tile, 8 A.S.R.2d 120.

Since the Fono has declined to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the court should not attempt to do so by judicial fiat.Pacific Reliant Industries, Inc. v. Amerika Samoa Bank, 16 A.S.R.2d 57.

Even if a statute creates unintended hardships, the responsibility to rewrite a statute belongs to the Legislature and not the High Court.Nelson & Robertson Pty., Ltd. v. Diocese of Pago Pago, 21 A.S.R.2d 6.

The ability of the House or Senate to maintain a suit against the executive branch is, in the proper circumstances, beyond question.Senate v. Lutali, 26 A.S.R.2d 125.

The Executive Branch does not have authority to pay anything in excess of an appropriation without express language granting such action.Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The Executive Branch’s power to fix employees’ salaries is limited by the amount appropriated by the Legislature.Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The Revised Constitution and laws are clear that the Executive Branch recommends and proposes an annual budget to the Legislature, and the Legislature in turn has the authority to appropriate public funds to implement that budget as it deems necessary.Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The Revised Constitution of American Samoa requires that the land alienation laws be changed by specific political procedures, and not by judicial fiat.Rev. Const. Amer. Samoa, Art. I, § 3.Craddick Dev. Inc. v. Craddick, 28 A.S.R.2d 117.

The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings seems to be an intelligent law, benefiting American Samoa, as well as other states and territories of the United State, should we adopt it as legislation.However, we have not, and this court has stated repeatedly that it will not sit as a legislature.Thus, although the Chief Justice would strongly recommend that the Legislature of American Samoa consider enacting the Uniform Act, he cannot proceed by judicial fiat as if the Legislature has already enacted it.In Re Proceedings to Compel Attendance of May Fitiausi, 29 A.S.R.2d 71.

A court cannot, by injunction or mandamus, control executive branch officials in their legitimate exercise of discretion.A court may, however, enjoin executive action when executive branch officials assume to act in contravention of the constitution or laws applicable in the jurisdiction.The Senate of the Legislature of Am. Samoa v. Lutali, 29 A.S.R.2d 165.

A court’s authority extends to restraints on executive branch officials from overspending legislative appropriations.The Senate of the Legislature of Am. Samoa v. Lutali, 29 A.S.R.2d 165.

If an executive branch official has authorized an improper expenditure of public funds, a declaratory judgment is appropriate.If, however, the expenditure is threatened in the future, such as a governor’s announced intention to do business in a manner that would result in a violation of the law, injunctive relief is appropriate.The Senate of the Legislature of Am. Samoa v. Lutali, 29 A.S.R.2d 165.

Separation of powers principles do not prevent the judicial branch from voiding a lease approved by the Governor in violation of due process rights.Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

The object of the tripartite system of government of American Samoa, and of the separation of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments, is basic and vital in precluding a commingling of these essentially different powers of government in the same hands.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

The Revised Constitution of American Samoa contemplates a government patterned after the federal tripartite system and, accordingly, the well-established principle of separation of powers applies.House of Representatives of American Samoa v. Sunia, 3 A.S.R.3d 123 (Trial Div. 1999).

The Legislature of American Samoa, under the principle of separation of powers, has wide discretion in implementing its internal procedures as to employment and termination of employment.Velega v. Legislature of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.3d 145 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 3The Legislature

§ 3(1)—Power and Authority

§ 3(1)(a)—Generally

A writ of mandamus may not compel the reversal of a decision of a legislative leader, exercising the proper discretion of his legislative capacity, but where the required act of a legislative leader is purely ministerial, mandamus may lie to compel it.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

The government, like everyone else, is bound by court orders in proceedings to which it is a party.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

The standard that free speech is not absolute and may, in certain, narrow situations be regulated, also applies to speech in the legislative process. Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

§ 3(1)(b)—Law-making Powers

Under 1960 Constitution, Legislature had power to enact laws governing jurisdiction, operations or procedures of judiciary if enactments were approved by Governor and Secretary of Interior.Fanene v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 957.

American Samoa’s constitutional provisions regarding reading and publication of bills does not require that an act of Congress adopted by reference be read and published anew.Incorporated penal provision providing adequate notice of what is prohibited is not unconstitutional.Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Ybarra, 1 A.S.R.2d 93 (Trial Div. 1983).

Those territorial laws which are inconsistent with applicable United States laws, violate the Territory’s Constitution.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

The effective scope of any legislative act is limited to the subject embraced in its title and matters properly connected thereto.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Existing statutes may not be revised by reference to title; the act, section or subsection of law being revised must be set forth at length as amended.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 3(1)(c)—Duty to Protect Land & Culture

Under Constitution of American Samoa the legislature, and particularly the Senate which is composed of traditional chiefs chosen according to Samoan custom, has a peculiar relationship to the preservation of land and culture.Rev. Const’n of Am. Samoa art. I § 3, art. II § 4.Tuika Tuika v. Governor of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.2d 85.

Any renewal or extension of a lease for a term 10 years or more requires Fono approval.A.S.C.A. § 37.2030.American Samoa Gov’t v. South Pacific Island Airsystems, Inc., 28 A.S.R.2d 74.

In light of its constitutional authority to “protect the lands,” the Legislature has a legitimate interest in the oversight and regulation of any land development projects by non-Samoans.This interest is legitimately furthered by requiring that detailed plans be submitted and approved by the Governor before a lease arrangement can go forward.Craddick Dev. Inc. v. Craddick, 28 A.S.R.2d 117.

§ 3(1)(d)—Appropriation of Funds

In general, money appropriated for a particular budgetary purpose, which remains unexpended and unobligated at the expiration of the appropriation legislation, lapses and becomes public revenue under the Legislature’s plenary control.The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

Under the administrative rules of American Samoa, the authority to spend public funds “is available for obligation only during a specified fiscal year and expires at the end of that time.”A.S.A.C. § 5.0103(16)(B)(I).The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

Once the Legislature appropriates funds for a budgetary purpose defined in the annual budget acts, the funds are only available for the term stated in the annual act and no longer, unless expressly provided by the Legislature.The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

A Legislator has the right to request work from the Legislative Financial Officer, and the Legislative Financial Officer may not disclose the request or the resulting information to anyone else before the Legislator making the request has an opportunity to review the resulting work product.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

An individual Legislator has the authority of the entire Legislature for purposes of gathering information through the Legislative Financial Officer.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

The House rule requiring that the Speaker review materials prepared by the Legislative Financial Officer before their submission to the Legislator requesting the work offends the plain language of the statute and exceeds the constitutional power of a single house to make rules of procedure for itself, and is therefore invalid insofar as it purports to countermand statutory mandate.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

The office of the Speaker is an agency of government within the meaning of A.S.C.A. § 2.0602, and the Speaker therefore has a plain duty to cooperate with the Legislative Financial Officer by opening records to the Legislative Financial Officer within normal working hours and times.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

A.S.C.A. § 10.0603 does not contemplate or give any direction regarding the disclosure of financial records to individual members of either house, and falls well short of creating the “plain duty” and “plain right” required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

The American Samoa Legislature is the only branch explicitly granted the power to pass laws appropriating and enabling the expenditure of public funds, and to approve budgets submitted by the Governor.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

In American Samoa, spending authorization power is reserved to the Legislature.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

Any statute purporting to alter the spending authorization power in derogation of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa is a priori null and void.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 3(1)(e)—Internal Procedural Powers

The primary powers by which legislative bodies preserve their institutional integrity without compromising the principle that citizens may choose their representatives are the powers of the House granted in Am. Samoa Rev. Const. art. II § 11: the power to determine its rules of procedure, punish members for disorderly behavior and, with the consent of two-thirds of its entire membership, may expel a member, but not a second time for the same offense.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

The power of the legislature to make rules governing its own proceedings would be nugatory unless it was coupled with a power to punish for disorderly behavior. Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

Punishment of a legislator for his legislative speech rests squarely within the Legislature and is immune from the Court’s review.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote and such procedure ensures a reflective and thoughtful decision by the entire legislative body and not just the triumph, on a whim, of a mere majority.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

Long-term suspension contradicts the purpose and constrictions of the expulsion clause.It allows a simple majority to effectuate an end-around assault on the super-majority requirement of Am. Samoa Rev. Const. art. II § 11.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

Expulsion of a senator provides another safeguard to the democratic process by allowing a vacant position to be filled, thereby extending continuous representation to the district of the barred representative.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

The power to punish is the primary power by which legislative bodies preserve their institutional integrity without compromising the principle that citizens may choose their representatives.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

The House failed to comport with due process when it: (1) did not give the legislator notice of the hearing where the House voted and debated on his conduct; (2) conducted these meetings in the legislator’s absence; and (3) did not allow him the opportunity to be heard, call witnesses or cross-examine his accusers.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

Normally, the courts must refrain from prying into matters that admit of legislative adjudication rather than judicial resolution, such as disputes dealing solely with internal legislative rules or functions.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

§ 3(2)—Committees

Questions about the disposal of government property were relevant to an inquiry into the causes of a government budget deficit.Senate Select Investigating Committee v. Horning, 3 A.S.R.2d 14.

Committee created by one house of the legislature is a committee “of the legislature” within the meaning of territorial statute authorizing committees to subpoena witnesses.A.S.C.A. § 2.1003 et seq.Senate Select Investigating Committee v. Horning, 3 A.S.R.2d 14.

Territorial statute requiring legislative committees to adopt rules to govern their procedures, and requiring that person served with subpoenas also be served with a copy of the rules, was not satisfied by a committee’s decision to adopt as “rules” the provisions of the statute itself.A.S.C.A. § 2.1003 et seq.Senate Select Investigating Committee v. Horning, 3 A.S.R.2d 14.

Committee’s failure to comply with a statute requiring it to adopt rules and to serve a copy of these rules on person served with subpoena justified the refusal of a person served with subpoena to testify.A.S.C.A. §§ 2.1006, 2.1011, 2.1018.Senate Select Investigating Committee v. Horning, 3 A.S.R.2d 14.

§ 3(3)—Legislation

Acts of Samoan legislature, if not vetoed by Secretary of Interior, are entitled to as much weight as legislative enactments in an organized territory.Vessel Fijian Swift v. Trial Division, 4 A.S.R. 983.

Legislative resolution disapproving lease of government land, pursuant to statute giving binding effect to such resolutions, was not a “law” within the meaning of a constitutional provision requiring all laws to be enacted by bill rather than resolution.Rev. Const’n of Am. Samoa art. II § 9.Tuika Tuika v. Governor of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.2d 85.

Statute drawing a distinction between people whose licenses were suspended for driving under the influence and people whose licenses were suspended for other reasons had a rational basis, since classification was based on conduct rather than status and legislature believed there was a special need to deter and punish drunken driving.A.S.C.A. § 22.0223.American Samoa Gov’t v. Macomber, 8 A.S.R.2d 182.

Legislative inaction in the face of judicial statutory construction strongly suggests agreement with, or at least acquiescence in, the judicial interpretation of those laws.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

When the legislature re-enacts a statute or adopts amendments to it “without a suggestion of disagreement” with a prior judicial construction, a very strong presumption exists that the legislature has adopted the prior construction.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

The requirement that a statute must have a rational basis is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.In Re the Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 155.

Whether a statute operates retrospectively or prospectively only is a question of legislative intent.American Samoa Gov’t v. Meredith, 28 A.S.R.2d 10.

Although states and some possessions can enact laws to exempt themselves from the Johnson Act, American Samoa cannot.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

The American Samoa licensing statute, A.S.C.A. § 11.0601 et. seq, is preempted by the Johnson Act, and declared null and void to the extent of its repugnancy to the latter.Muavaefa`atasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 184 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 4The Executive

SEE TAXATION § 11(2) – AUTHORITY OF GOVERNOR, BOARD

§ 4(1) —The Governor

Since time of cession, authority of Governor is paramount to that of District Governor who is appointed by and holds office at pleasure of Governor.Teo v. Liufau, 1 A.S.R. 628.

When Governor of American Samoa is investigating in his official capacity, statements made to him are privileged, and, as such, cannot form the basis for actionable slander.Dwyer v. McDonald, 1 A.S.R. 652.

Only in extraordinary circumstances will a court compel the testimony of the chief executive of the jurisdiction in which the court sits.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

Most information available from chief executive of state or territory can be just as easily obtained from lesser officials.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

Party may compel testimony from chief executive of state or territory only if it seems absolutely necessary to make out his case and the party can convince the court that there is some chance the testimony will enable him to prevail.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

Before being allowed to compel testimony of territorial Governor regarding alleged scheme to dispose of government property for less than its actual value, party must produce other evidence of Governor’s personal involvement in such scheme.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

Where incumbent Governor was actively involved in affairs of a corporation before he became Governor and is the only available witness with detailed knowledge of events material to litigation involving the corporation, a party may compel his testimony.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

Territorial statute requiring certain transactions to be “approved in writing by the Governor” was not violated when Governor signed a lease document and then authorized members of his staff to make certain revisions to the document before it left his office, even though the Governor did not sign the document a second time after the changes were made.A.S.C.A. § 30.0131.American Samoa Gov’t v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 11 A.S.R.2d 144.

A matai’s alienation of land must comply with certain statutory procedures, including the approval of the Governor of American Samoa.A.S.C.A § 37.0204.Alaimalo v. Sivia, 17 A.S.R.2d 25.

The power to expel aliens is a fundamental, sovereign power exercised by the political branches of government.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

Because the Governor has general supervision and control of all executive departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, personnel decisions are subject to his direction as long as his actions are in accordance with applicable territorial and federal laws and rules.Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. II, § 7; A.S.C.A. § 7.0110; A.S.A.C. §§ 4.0102, 4.0111(b).Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

An application for an order directing the Government of American Samoa to show cause why it should not be held liable for a judgment remains unsupported if it is not accompanied by evidence that the Governor has given prior approval to the garnishment of the Government pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 43.1803(b).Development Bank of American Samoa v. Mau, 25 A.S.R.2d 17.

To become valid, a lease of native land must be approved by the Governor.A.S.C.A. § 37.0221(a).Before the Governor approves any document affecting title to land, it must be reviewed by the Land Commission for recommendations. A.S.C.A. § 37.0203(a).Moetoto v. Tauileva, 28 A.S.R.2d 144.

The Director of Manpower Resources, not the Governor, has the statutory authority to administer the personnel laws of American Samoa.Rakshan v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 151.

Although the governor may voluntarily choose to grant audiences to anyone who seeks to maintain an at-will periodic tenancy or who proposes to lease government land, due process does not mandate that the governor must conduct formal administrative hearings whenever he exercises his discretion to terminate an at-will periodic tenancy or acts on a proposal to lease government land.Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

A decision regarding the lease of government land is a matter solely within the governor’s discretion.Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

The power to protect American Samoa’s borders is vested in both the executive and legislative branches and the Governor’s authority over immigration matters is limited by the statutory grant of the Legislature.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

Simply naming a program an “amnesty” program does not bring it within the scope of the Governor’s pardoning power.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

The Governor’s pardoning power is limited to granting reprieves for past offenses and can only be exercised after an individual has been convicted.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

Although Governor may grant pardons, or amnesty, after convictions for immigration violations, he isn’t empowered to change a particular undocumented alien’s immigration status.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

The governor’s constitutional pardoning power is expressly limited to pardons, even if that term is broadly construed to include amnesty grants, bestowed after convictions for criminal offenses.Even when the governor properly applies his pardoning power, the grantee’s immigration status must still be approved in compliance with the immigration laws of American Samoa. Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

The Governor is without authority to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens under his constitutional pardoning power or by other means.The governor can be empowered with that authority only by constitutional amendment or by legislative enactment. Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

The Governor is without authority to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens, who have not been convicted of any criminal offense related to their illegal presence in American Samoa, in the absence of an effective constitutional amendment or legislation authorizing the governor to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

§ 4(2)—Power and Authority

Powers of pardon and parole granted to executive by statutes and constitution do not give the executive carte blanche to ignore court orders and sentences. American Samoa Gov’t v. Dole, 3 A.S.R.2d 63.

Release of prisoner within two weeks after court had sentenced him to a year of detention as condition of probation, whether called a furlough, work release, reward for good behavior, compassionate leave, or by another label, violated statutes and court order.American Samoa Gov’t v. Dole, 3 A.S.R.2d 63.

Statute allowing court to impose detention as a condition of probation did not violate the constitutional provision allowing governor to grant pardons, since any prisoner pardoned by the governor could no longer be incarcerated.Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. IV § 9; A.S.C.A. § 46.2206.Atuatasi v. Moaali`itele, 8 A.S.R.2d 53.

When it acts in a sovereign capacity, the government is generally not subject to estoppel.Atuatasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 9 A.S.R.2d 67.

Estoppel may be applied against the government if, in addition to other factors necessary to give rise to an estoppel, the government’s wrongful conduct threatens to work a serious injustice, and the public interest would not be unduly damaged by the estoppel.Atuatasi v. American Samoa Gov’t, 9 A.S.R.2d 67.

Order of deportation must be made by the Attorney General.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

The executive branch has the statutory authority to preserve and administer government lands.Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

Inherent, executive authority exists to suspend an employee before his removal is effective under circumstances which would make continued performance of regular duties detrimental to the territorial government’s interests; however, this action may not be arbitrary or capricious.A.S.C.A. § 7.0802; A.S.A.C. §§ 4.0801, 4.0802(e).Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

If a serious condition exists, ASG may place plaintiff on annual leave, reassign him to duties in which the condition does not exist, place him on excused absence, or suspend him with or without pay pending removal, provided the action is taken in compliance with all applicable laws and rules and is based on substantive and documented justification.A.S.A.C. § 4.0802(e).Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

When the government makes rules to govern the conduct of its affairs, it must abide by those rules and act within its authority.Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

If done within the scope and by the apparent authority of a de jure public officer, a de facto public officer’s acts are binding on third parties; it is as if the de facto public officer were legally selected, qualified and in possession of the office.Toilolo v. Poti, 24 A.S.R.2d 1.

In American Samoa, program managers are given some flexibility to deal with contingencies that were not anticipated during the regular budget development process but this flexibility must be dealt with prudently and in consideration of the policymakers’ and the people’s wishes.A.S.A.C. § 5.0134(b).The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The Executive Branch does not have authority to pay anything in excess of an appropriation without express language granting such action.The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The Executive Branch’s power to fix employees’ salaries is limited by the amount appropriated by the Legislature.The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

If appropriated funds are available for payment of a particular vendor contract and are properly obligated under the procurement process before the end of the current fiscal year, the obligated funds will carry forward until the obligation is paid rather than revert to the general fund.Otherwise, the Executive Branch has no legal authority to disperse public funds to pay past due debts to vendors incurred in a prior fiscal year without a current fiscal year appropriation for such purposes and timely completion of the procurement process.A.S.A.C. § 5.0103(13)(A).The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

The American Samoa Government does not have a legal obligation to pay step increments to its employees for past fiscal years.A.S.C.A. § 7.1001.The Senate v. Lutali, 27 A.S.R.2d 126.

A contract entered into by a government official lacking authority, or failing to follow proper procedures, is void.Rakshan v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 151.

The petitioner will fail the second prong of the test for issuing an alternative writ of mandamus unless he/she establishes that the duty of respondent is purely “ministerial.” A duty is ministerial only if it is clearly proscribed and does not involve an exercise of judgment or discretion.Porter v. Registrar of Vital Statistics, 28 A.S.R.2d 175.

It is a violation of both constitutional and statutory provisions for the Governor to act as chief procurement officer.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

The governor has the powers, duties and responsibilities as delegated under A.S.C.A. § 4.0111 in addition to those powers conferred by article IVof the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, and the laws for which the governor is responsible for faithful execution of are established by the legislative branch.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

The governor does not possess the power to make appointments to public office unless it is expressly conferred by the constitution or statutes, and neither allows him to appoint himself as chief procurement officer.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

The general supervisory power over the executive department given to the governor by Article IV, section 7 of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa does not include the power of appointment.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Article IV, section 11 of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa gives the governor specifically limited power to appoint officials who are not otherwise provided for, and the chief procurement officer is otherwise provided for.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Under A.S.C.A. § 12.0213, the Governor has the power to make procurements himself only in an emergency as defined under A.S.C.A. 26.0105(d), and such procurement must be as competitive as possible and be accompanied by a written determination of the basis for the emergency.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Under Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. IV § 12, the Governor may not unilaterally expand the power of appointment granted to him by constitutional and statutory provisions, and is not at liberty to ignore or suspend the operation of such statutes.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Confirmation of appointments made by the Governor is not an inherent legislative power; it is a specific attribute of the executive power of appointment which, in most cases, is constitutionally delegated to the legislative branch.House of Representatives of American Samoa v. Sunia, 3 A.S.R.3d 123 (Trial Div. 1999).

The Appropriations clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended as a restriction on the disbursing authority of the Executive department.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

Under the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, the executive branch’s role in the appropriations process is limited to preparation of the preliminary budget plans.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

A.S.C.A. § 37.2010 does not provide the Executive branch with unfettered discretion to spend public funds on the government’s behalf.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

The Revised Constitution of American Samoa mandates that the Executive Branch may not obligate public funds in any manner without an appropriation by the Legislature.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

The Revised Constitution and laws of American Samoa are silent as to whether the Executive Branch may form public corporations.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

Although the Legislature has the limited, constitutional authority to replace certain judicial proceedings with administrative contested case proceedings, it may not invest an administrative hearings officer with more than quasi-judicial authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The statute creating a state agency or state office may authorize, expressly or implicitly, engagement of counsel other than Attorney General.RDL., Inc./CIDA, Inc. v. Am. Samoa Comty. College, 6 A.S.R.3d 101 (Trial Div. 2002).

§ 4(3)—Agencies

In order for a government subdivision to be a separate entity capable of suing or being sued in its own name, such status must bestow by statute or constitution.Aga v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.2d 130.

Administrative board, given statutory authority to advise agency and to perform such duties as governor assigns, had no authority to issue binding personnel decisions absent explicit grant, especially when Code sets forth hiring and termination procedures that do not involve board.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

Under territorial statutes providing that the registrar should not record any instrument appearing to be illegal, but that any person aggrieved by any official action of the register could apply to the court “at any time” for direction or redress, a lessor would not prevail in an action for eviction based on non-recordation of a lease where (1) the lease was initially recorded by the registrar’s office; (2) an acting registrar later attempted retroactively to reject the lease, citing certain alleged illegalities; (3) upon trial of the eviction action, defendant invoked its right to judicial review of the registrar’s action and the court found that the lease was not illegal and was therefore properly accepted for recordation.A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1104, 4.1106.American Samoa Government v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 11 A.S.R.2d 144.

Assuming that deputy territorial registrar had the power to cancel the prior recordation of a lease had there been something genuinely wrong with it, an aggrieved party would have the right at any time to apply to the court for direction or redress, and the aggrieved party could exercise such right by alleging and proving in an action for eviction that the substantive bases for the cancellation were without merit.A.S.C.A. § 4.1106.American Samoa Government v. Samoa Aviation, Inc. (Mem), 13 A.S.R.2d 65.

For purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 3407, the American Samoa Government is not a federal agency. American Samoa Gov’t v. Leiataua, 27 A.S.R.2d 26.

The Director of Manpower Resources, not the Governor, has the statutory authority to administer the personnel laws of American Samoa.Rakshan v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 151.

Although the ASG’s Parks and Recreation Commission is a statutory agency of the ASG’s Executive Branch, it is not a “commission . . . authorized by law to make rules or to determine contested cases.” A.S.C.A. § 4.1001(a).Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

This court functions to ensure that the executive branch respects a party’s substantive due process rights by determining whether decisions of the governor and his executive agencies were arbitrary and capricious, pretextual, or without a rational basis.Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

The Attorney General is charged with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws except insofar as such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties of the Immigration Board.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 88 (Trial Div. 1997).

Attorney General, as head of Department head of Legal Affairs Department and Chief Immigration Officer, as division head of Immigration Office, are responsible for ensuring that subordinates comply with Court’s order.Vaela’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 131 (Trial Div. 1997).

A department head’s, or division head’s, failure to provide full and accurate instructions to subordinates regarding a Court order, where such Court order has direct consequences on the jobs performed by such subordinates, constitutes inexcusable neglect.Vaela’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 131 (Trial Div. 1997).

Where Attorney General and Acting Chief Immigration Officer gave imprecise instructions, resulting in subordinate issuing verifications of immigration status in violation of Court’s injunction, the failure to give specific instructions constituted inexcusable neglect and could be punished as contempt. Vaela’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 131 (Trial Div. 1997).

Even assuming the Attorney General has general authority to make original decisions on the immigration issues listed in A.S.C.A. § 41.0303, the Immigration Board remains ultimately responsible under A.S.C.A. § 41.0205(1) for the attorney general’s decisions in these matters.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

The Immigration Board does not lose either its authority to make or responsibility for consummated decisions to grant first authorizations to remain simply by delegating any such power to the attorney general.Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

Under the provisions of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, art. IV, § 4, the Secretary of Samoan Affairs is appointed by the Governor, serves at his pleasure, and there is no confirmation role for the Legislature which would limit these powers.House of Representatives of American Samoa v. Sunia, 3 A.S.R.3d 123 (Trial Div. 1999).

The Legislature may not usurp the power of confirmation, and as the Revised Constitution of American Samoa makes no provision for legislative confirmation of gubernatorial appointments to the office of Secretary of Samoan Affairs, that power is attached to the executive power of appointment and is vested solely in the Governor. House of Representatives of American Samoa v. Sunia, 3 A.S.R.3d 123 (Trial Div. 1999).

Because A.S.C.A. § 4.0112, on its face and without constitutional authorization, offers the Legislature, by its confirmation provisions, a critical means of severely limiting the executive power of appointment, it is unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to the Secretary of Samoan Affairs.House of Representatives of American Samoa v. Sunia, 3 A.S.R.3d 123 (Trial Div. 1999).

A public agency’s invitation for bids is regarded as a request for offers and no contractual rights arise prior to its acceptance by the agency.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

In public contracts, the bid is the offer, and a contract comes into being upon acceptance by the governmental agency.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

Courts will respect statutory language requiring formal execution of a contract in order for contract rights and obligations to vest.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

Where arbitrary action or fraudulent intent to injure a complaining party is indicated, courts may interfere with an agency’s power to rescind its award.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

Where circumstances indicated that backroom negotiations had taken place between government agency and second-lowest bidder that was awarded contract after award rescinded, court would not honor clause shielding agency from liability as it had clearly employed clause arbitrarily and acted in bad faith.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

Where public agency granted contractor an extension for filing its bond, but did not clearly specify the length of such extension, court would consider agency’s custom of flexibility in determining the limits of the extension.Samoa Dev., Inc. v. Am. Samoa Power Auth., 5 A.S.R.3d 172 (Trial Div. 2001).

Agency jurisdiction is generally the power granted to a particular department, board or commission of government to effectively administer the laws enacted by the Legislature under that agency’s authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Administrative agencies are statutory creations and must adhere strictly to the statutes for their authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

If the Legislature has directed by statute the final agency decision-making power to be exercised only by a superior agency officer, such as its director, or by its governing board, commission or chief officer thereof, the A.L.J. is allowed only to hear and recommend a decision in a contested case with the agency director, board, etc. so that the agency head can make a final, informed, agency decision as mandated by law.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Review of a final administrative decision for errors of law is a matter ordinarily within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of the High Court.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 91 (Trial Div. 2002).

The American Samoa Community College has the power and responsibility to sue and be sued.RDL., Inc./CIDA, Inc. v. Am. Samoa Comty. College, 6 A.S.R.3d 101 (Trial Div. 2002).

The American Samoa Community College has the power to enter into contracts.RDL., Inc./CIDA, Inc. v. Am. Samoa Comty. College, 6 A.S.R.3d 101 (Trial Div. 2002).

Governmental agencies are not directly forbidden from employing attorneys other than the Attorney General, and the Attorney General is not anointed as the only option the government has for legal counsel.RDL., Inc./CIDA, Inc. v. Am. Samoa Comty. College, 6 A.S.R.3d 101 (Trial Div. 2002).

The statute creating the American Samoa College implies the power to hire outside counsel.RDL., Inc./CIDA, Inc. v. Am. Samoa Comty. College, 6 A.S.R.3d 101 (Trial Div. 2002).

§ 5The Judiciary

§ 5(1)—Power and Authority

SEE CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1 – JURISDICTION

High Court is a court of equity as well as law.Jewett v. McMoore, 1 A.S.R. 611.

Authority of Secretary of Native Affairs over conduct of magistrates and judges of lower courts is ministerial and not judicial, and interpretation of law by such executive officer is not binding upon High Court.Toomata v. Railey, 1 A.S.R. 623.

At conclusion of case, court may make oral decision and is not obliged to render written decision absent request by one of the parties.Dwyer v. McDonald, 1 A.S.R. 652.

Fact decision is unsigned by Judge does not indicate that it is not order of court.Simaile v. Lafoa’i, 2 A.S.R. 170.

A purported decision of the High Court, not signed by judge rendering same has no value as precedent.Atoa v. Meredith, 3 A.S.R. 159.

Court cannot declare one senatorial candidate victor over another, since it lacks jurisdiction to so do, such being the exclusive province of senate.A.S. Const. Art. II, § 22.Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.

Since A.S. Const. Art. II, § 22 reserves right to legislature to judge qualifications of “members,” court will not interfere and decide challenge to election of senator once he has been sworn in as member.11 A.S.C. § 6671.Tuitasi v. Lualemaga, 4 A.S.R. 798.

Judicial power is vested in High Court, District Courts and such other courts as created by law, and judicial branch is independent of legislative and executive.(Const. Art. III, Sec. 1 and 2.)Fanene v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 957.

The courts of American Samoa are “legislative” rather than “constitutional” courts and are subject to the mandate of Congress or its delegatee, the President, or his delegatee, the Secretary of Interior.Rev. Const. Am. Samoa, Art. III, § 1; Art. II, § 1; Art. IV, § 2.Vessel Fijian Swift v. Trial Division, 4 A.S.R. 983.

The High Court is a territorial court duly constituted under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.In re M/V Pearl, 2 A.S.R.2d 76 (App. Div. 1986).

The High Court can exercise at least some authority not specially granted it by Congress.In re M/V Pearl, 2 A.S.R.2d 76 (App. Div. 1986).

Visit by one member of court to land that was the subject of litigation, and subsequent report of that judge to other judges, did not constitute impermissible “testimony” by the judge when both counsel had been present at the viewing of the land and no objection had been made.Vaimaona v. Paleafei, 3 A.S.R.2d 92.

Territorial statute giving court power to suspend procedural rules that would lead to inequitable result does not give court power to suspend rules of substantive law.A.S.C.A. § 3.0242.Ape v. Puagele, 3 A.S.R.2d 109.

Statute prescribing participation in matai title dispute of one law-trained judge, as well as four associate judges who are not lawyers but who are chosen for their familiarity with Samoan custom, did not require that the law-trained judge be present during all deliberations of the associate judges.A.S.C.A. § 3.0240.In re Matai Title La’apui, 4 A.S.R.2d 7.

When court is considering the application of judge-made rules rather than legislation or a constitution, it has the duty to consider whether changed circumstances warrant modification of such rules.Monte Kaho v. Ron Pritchard Ground Services, Inc., 4 A.S.R.2d 40.

When a rule of law has been adopted in an overwhelming majority of the jurisdictions with which forum state has contact, the rule may give rise to changed customs and usages within forum.Security Pacific National Bank v. M/V Conquest, 4 A.S.R.2d 59.

Territorial statute permitting court to subordinate rules of “practice or procedure” to exigencies of justice and convenience does not give the court power to overturn a final judgment in the absence of new evidence, fraud, surprise, or similar circumstances, since res judicata is a rule of substantive law and not of procedure.A.S.C.A. § 3.0242(b); T.C.R.C.P. Rule 60.Willis v. Willis, 4 A.S.R.2d 144.

Territorial courts are established not under Article III of the Constitution, but by Congress pursuant to the general legislative powers granted by article I and the power granted by article IV to make rules and regulations for the territories.U.S. Const. arts. I, III, IV.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

The High Court of American Samoa exercises judicial power that can be divested only by an Act of Congress.48 U.S.C. § 1662a; Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. III § 1.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

The “judicial jurisdiction of the United States” extends to American Samoa.11 U.S.C. § 101(49).Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

Territorial court is not bound to interpret local rules in strict conformity with federal courts’ interpretations of parallel federal rules.Wray v. Wray, 5 A.S.R.2d 34.

Trial court rule that written judgment contain separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law does not require inflexible format of segregated, numbered, and labeled entries.T.C.R.C.P. Rule 52.Development Bank v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 110.

Territorial court would defer as a matter of comity or full faith and credit to the lawful orders of a court of the United States properly exercising its jurisdiction even if there were no federal statute requiring it to do so.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 6 A.S.R.2d 62.

A strong presumption of validity attaches to an order of the High Court signed by a Justice thereof.Satele v. Uiagalelei, 6 A.S.R.2d 143.

Unlike federal rules of criminal procedure promulgated under the authority of Congress and binding on federal courts to the same extent as statutes, territorial rules are made by the Court itself, so that a time limit provided by territorial rule is not as obviously jurisdictional as a similar limit provided by federal rule.Rev’d Const. Am. Samoa art. III § 2; A.S.C.A. § 3.1002(c).American Samoa Gov’t v. Tile, 8 A.S.R.2d 120.

Even if court has authority to disregard or make exceptions to its own rules, it would be imprudent to make such exceptions on an ad hoc basis in order to reach the desired result in a particular case.American Samoa Gov’t v. Tile, 8 A.S.R.2d 120.

The court is bound by statute and treaty to recognize freehold grants made by the Land Commission of Samoa, which operated in Apia under the supervision of the then-Supreme Court of Samoa, prior to the United States-established government.Willis v. Fai`ivae, 17 A.S.R.2d 38.

The Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. T.C.R.Cr.P. 35.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

Because the High Court’s rules were promulgated solely on its own authority, they must give way to territorial statutes defining the court’s jurisdiction, unless the statutes themselves are unconstitutional.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

In imposing conditions of probation, the sentencing judge is well-situated to know whether a particular offender needs to be insulated from his past environment, his associates, his victim, or those who assisted in his prosecution, as well as the best methods to assure such insulation.American Samoa Government v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

The High Court refused to approve parties’ stipulation to lift a stay of an action in federal district court when no such stay was issued because of the lack of statutory authority to do so.Fa’atasiga v. M/V Ocean Pearl, 19 A.S.R.2d 59.

The Chief Justice’s rulemaking authority under A.S.C.A. § 46.0501 does not include the power to amend unambiguous legislative enactments setting out the prerequisites to appeal.Fa’amaoni v. American Samoa Government, 20 A.S.R.2d 127.

A court may compel specific performance of a partially performed, unwritten agreement; the court’s power to compel specific performance is expressly recognized in the statute of frauds relating to land transactions.A.S.C.A. § 37.0211.Manoa v. Jennings, 21 A.S.R.2d 23.

The High Court looks to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance and must conform to them as closely as practicable.A.S.C.A. § 43.0201(a).Crispin v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 60.

Though the Immigration Board’s documents are confidential by statute, this statute may not be used to deny constitutionally guaranteed due-process rights, nor does it prohibit the Court from ordering the Attorney General to produce these records when needed.U.S. Constitution Amend. V; Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. I, § 2; A.S.C.A. § 41.0307.Farapo v. American Samoa Gov’t, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

The district court is authorized to issue process, and an arrest warrant is a form of process.A.S.C.A. § 3.0304, T.C.R.Cr.P. 4(c)(1).American Samoa Gov’t v. Tagaloa, 24 A.S.R.2d 37.

The High Court possesses the statutory authority to issue an injunction if it deems money damages to be an inadequate remedy; as such, it may order a special shareholders’ meeting if a board of directors, though lacking any discretion in the matter, fails to call a meeting.A.S.C.A. § 43.1302.Lutali v. Foster, 24 A.S.R.2d 39.

The rules of civil procedure do not limit a court’s power to (1) entertain an independent action for relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or (2) set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); T.C.R.C.P. 60(b).Rocha v. Rocha, 24 A.S.R.2d 55.

A single justice has the authority to issue an alternative writ, schedule a hearing, and set a briefing schedule; however, resolution of substantive issues, other than in connection with any preliminary or supplementary matter, requires a quorum of two justices and one associate judge.A.S.C.A. §§ 3.0209, 3.0220.In re Complaint of Voyager, Inc., 24 A.S.R.2d 90.

A court may dispose of an entire controversy by granting both equitable relief and damages, in order to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits.Thompson v. Toluao, 24 A.S.R.2d 127.

The High Court of American Samoa is empowered to enforce a judgment of any United States court or other court entitled to full faith and credit in American Samoa under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. A.S.C.A. §§ 43.1701‑09.DeStael v. Strasburg, 25 A.S.R.2d 96.

The High Court of American Samoa is not a federal court.American Samoa Gov’t v. Leiataua, 27 A.S.R.2d 26.

If a majority of the four associate judges make a decision, the justice need not participate in the four associate judges’ deliberations.In Re Matai Title “Tuaolo”, 28 A.S.R.2d 137.

The western style court system delivers clearly identifiable winners and losers by providing decisive final decisions and orders that are legally binding and enforceable by the collective force of the community.Litigants who cannot win family support for their views, and decide instead to take their chances in court, should be aware that their interpretations of custom may not be persuasive to the court either.Fanene v. Fanene, 30 A.S.R.2d 115.

The High Court is not bound to accept the definition of misapplication of funds expounded by the federal courts.In fact, federal courts have used varying definitions for misappropriation of funds. American Samoa Gov’t v. Leiataua, 30 A.S.R.2d 130.

From the face of the statute, the court does not appear to have discretion in ordering forfeiture of bail if a condition of the bond is violated.T.C.R.Cr.P. 46(e)(1).American Samoa Gov’t v. Togialeoli, 30 A.S.R.2d 130.

The court may, on its own motion, clarify its discussion in an opinion and order.Mailo v. Aumavae, 31 A.S.R.2d 6.

The fact that the trial court judge, during in-chambers conference, remarked that if appellant were found guilty, he would be held in custody pending sentencing did not constitute a threat that the judge would penalize appellant for exercising his right to a jury trial.Pule v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (App. Div. 1997).

One of the inherent powers of a trial court is the power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution.American Samoa Gov’t v. Lavata’i, 1 A.S.R.3d 164 (Trial Div. 1997).

The court has discretion to dismiss cases where the plaintiff is guilty of neglect, even in the absence of statute or rule regarding diligent prosecution, because the court has a right and duty to keep the judicial system in efficient operation.American Samoa Gov’t v. Lavata’i, 1 A.S.R.3d 164 (Trial Div. 1997).

Under Article III of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa (R.C.A.S.) judicial power is vested in the High Court, District Court and other courts established by law as an independent branch of government, with the Chief Justice and Associate Justices appointed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

A.S.C.A. §§ 83.0101-.0103 provides for the administration of the independent judicial branch by the Chief Justice, and specifies generally the jurisdiction of the courts.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

Both under the authority of T.C.R.C.P. 41(b) and through its inherent powers, a court may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.Estate of Pua`auli v. LBJ Tropical Medical Center, 4 A.S.R.3d 103 (Trial Div. 2000).

Judicial power in American Samoa, like the United States, is limited review of presently pending cases or controversies.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

Judicial review of administrative action is limited by the requirement that there be an actual, live controversy to adjudicate.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

Judicial powers can only be exercised by the Judicial Branch of the American Samoa Government under the Revised Constitution of American Samoa.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Judicial power, and the exercise thereof, is constitutionally reserved exclusively for the Judicial Branch by the Courts of Law established under the Revised Constitution of American Samoa.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The High Court has the power to interpret the constitutional provisions governing the exclusion and expulsion of Senators, and whether the Senate’s actions conformed to its constitutionally mandated powers.Fa`amausili v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 6 A.S.R.3d 259 (Trial Div. 2002).

If the powers of any branch of the government, and even those of the Legislature in the enactment of laws, have not been exercised in conformity to the Constitution, the Court can properly treat such acts as null and void.Fa`amausili v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 6 A.S.R.3d 259 (Trial Div. 2002).

The court has an obligation, however, to review governmental actions or laws that conflict with, or-are limited by, constitutional provisions.Muavaefa’atasi v. House of Representatives, 7 A.S.R.3d 117 (Trial Div. 2003).

§ 5(2)—Administration of Court

Governor is authorized to appoint temporary Chief Justice in case of disability, disqualification or absence of Chief Justice.(CAS 168.)Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.

Actual payment of estimated transcript cost coupled with timely request for cost of transcript (although no formal order for transcript) is sufficient to satisfy Rule 55(2) requiring transcript order.11 A.S.C. 5122(3).In re Matai Title Alalamua, 4 A.S.R. 974.

If counsel is dissatisfied with the interpreter’s English translation of a witness’s Samoan testimony, his remedy is to object immediately so that any error can be corrected or to ask the witness any questions that may be necessary to eliminate ambiguities in the official record, which is kept in English.Lea’e v. Lea’e (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 56.

Associate Judges of the High Court of American Samoa, who speak both Samoan and English, may correct any inaccuracies they detect in the translation of Samoan testimony into English as soon as such inaccuracies occur.Lea’e v. Lea’e (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 56.

The post-trial and appellate stages of a proceeding, which with a few extraordinary exceptions must be based upon the record made at trial, are not the appropriate forum for counsel to request corrections of English translation of Samoan testimony.Lea’e v. Lea’e (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 56.

Courts of Samoa follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as closely as practical.(CAS 251.)Lualemana v. Magalei, 4 A.S.R. 849.

Criminal procedure in courts of American Samoa shall conform as nearly as may be practical to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.(CAS 3.0606.)Fanene v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 957.

To hold a trial only a few minutes after the filing of the answer, over the objection of a party or under equivalent circumstances would be fundamentally unfair.Diocese of Samoa Pago Pago v. KMST, Inc., 15 A.S.R.2d 20.

High Court opinions between 1978 and 1986 were reported only if they established or altered a rule of law, criticized existing law, or, in the Justices’ opinion, “involve[d] a legal issue of continuing public interest.”Saufo`i v. American Samoa Gov’t, 16 A.S.R.2d 71.

A court reporter is to produce a transcript within a thirty days after receiving an order for it.A.C.R. 11(b).Rocha v. Rocha, 17 A.S.R.2d 15.

Statute providing that the High Court shall have interpreters deals with the method of appointing permanent court employees and does not require Court to find, employ, and compensate special ad hoc officers whenever a litigant demands an interpreter.Kim v. American Samoa Government, 17 A.S.R.2d 193.

When the High Court dismisses cases for want of diligent prosecution, civil actions will be dismissed with prejudice if good cause is not shown to the contrary, but land-and-titles actions will be dismissed without prejudice.Jennings v. Jennings, 19 A.S.R.2d 34.

A damage award to a minor shall be deposited directly into the depositary of the High Court of American Samoa and placed in an interest-bearing account with the minor as beneficiary; disbursements are to be made only on application by the guardian ad litem and with the approval of one of the Justices.Sciascia v. Lutali, 23 A.S.R.2d 38.

Although a defendant is not to be prejudiced because of his indigent circumstances, he is not entitled to a transcript as of right simply upon demand.American Samoa Government v. Suiaunoa, 24 A.S.R.2d 161.

Reasonable costs may be required of litigants.Because litigation costs are borne not only by a plaintiff but also by defendants, taxpayers, and parties in other lawsuits (which may be delayed or receive less attention), even a small filing fee helps a plaintiff to think about the merits of his case.An indigent plaintiff may even be required to pay a partial filing fee.Mckenzie v. Tuimavave, 26 A.S.R.2d 13.

A litigant desiring to proceed in forma pauperis must submit a sworn affidavit supporting his motion.The affidavit is to specifically detail the reasons for the alleged inability to pay court fees and must enumerate all sources of funds.Mckenzie v. Tuimavave, 26 A.S.R.2d 13.

Proceeding in forma pauperis is undeniably a privilege and not a right; therefore, permission to do so is at the court’s discretion.McKenzie v. Tuimavave, 26 A.S.R.2d 13.

General statements are insufficient to make the required showing that plaintiff has necessary expenditures which would preclude his paying the filing fee.Mckenzie v. Tuimavave, 26 A.S.R.2d 13.

A receiver is a ministerial officer, agent, creature, hand, or arm of, and a temporary occupant and caretaker of the property for the court, and represents the appointing court, and is the medium through which the court acts.Samoa Aviation, Inc. v. Bendall, 28 A.S.R.2d 222.

One of the inherent powers of a trial court is the power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution.A.S.G. v. Lavata`i, 31 A.S.R.2d 191.

Trial court has wide latitude and discretion in supervising the time limits, scope, and the extent of argument and summation.Rulings on such issues are subject to review for abuse of discretion.Pule v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (App. Div. 1997).

A court, as a separate department of government, may create a trust, transfer property to the trust, and appoint a trustee to take care of trust property for the best interest of the beneficiaries under its inherent power to do what is reasonably necessary for the proper administration of justice and where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential for the performance of the court’s constitutionally mandated mission.Bendall v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 1 A.S.R.3d 16 (App. Div. 1997).

Under A.S.C.A. § 3.1006, in the event of inadequate numbers of associate judges to sit at trial or on appeal, the Chief Justice may appoint temporary associate judges from a panel of persons recommended by the Chief Justice, found qualified by the Governor, and confirmed by the Senate.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

§ 5(3)—Disqualification – Recusal

Judge should disqualify himself from trying case even though he is entirely free of bias if circumstances have arisen which give bona fide appearance of bias, such as distant relationship to one of parties.Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Application to disqualify judge should be filed prior to trial and alleged bias of judge is not timely raised on appeal.Iosia v. Heirs of Lemeanai Family, 3 A.S.R. 482.

Statute (Sec. 172-1952 Amendments) disqualifies judge if he is or has been a material witness, not if he is a mere potential witness.Iosia v. Heirs of Lemeanai Family, 3 A.S.R. 482.

Evidence fails to support that judge was related to one of parties, and any relation based on marriage would have been terminated by divorce.Betham v. Faumuina, 3 A.S.R. 537.

Application to disqualify judge should be filed at earliest opportunity and in case of appeal, immediately after notice of appeal.Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.

Grounds for disqualification of judges must be affirmatively shown in a timely fashion in order to provide an appealable issue.In re Matai Title “Tuiolesega,” 1 A.S.R.2d 37 (Land & Titles Div. 1980).

Motion for disqualification of judge which was apparently an attempt at “judge shopping” should be denied.Pene v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 23.

Trial judge who, in denying summary judgment against pro se litigant in a previous case, had quoted authority to the effect that summary judgment was not the appropriate remedy for incoherent and unskillful pleadings, did not thereby malign the litigant’s person and did not create ground for recusal in subsequent cases involving the same litigant.Pene v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 23.

Judge has as much obligation not to recuse himself when there is no occasion for recusal as he has to recuse himself when there is such occasion.Pene v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 23.

When an Associate Judge of the High Court made a comment during trial that a party had obstructed the installation of a chief who was a cousin of the judge’s wife, this relationship was too attenuated and the incident too peripheral to require disqualification of that judge.In re Matai Title Tauala, 15 A.S.R.2d 65.

Waiting until after a trial to move for a judge’s disqualification is highly improper; doing so constitutes a waiver of the objection.In re Matai Title Tauala, 15 A.S.R.2d 65.

Mere fact that a judge asked questions which pointed out flaws in counsel’s position or is related to a family that serves one of the parties in the case does not mean he is biased or prejudiced against a particular party.Uiagalelei v. Ulufale, 17 A.S.R.2d 158.

Because of the interest in the finality of judgments, “fraud on the court” (1) is typically confined to the most egregious cases, such as an attorney’s exerting improper influence on the court or the bribery of a judge or juror, in which the integrity and impartial functioning of the court is directly impinged; and (2) must be proven by “clear and convincing evidence.”Rocha v. Rocha, 24 A.S.R.2d 55.

The words of A.S.C.A. § 3.1007(a) “a case in which he … has a substantial interest” not only mean that such a judge is actually biased in the case at issue, but also that such an interest may appear to exist.A lack of the legitimate appearance of impartiality is as threatening to smooth judicial functioning here as elsewhere.Jessop v. Histake, 25 A.S.R.2d 12.

Antagonistic questions do not necessarily indicate improper judicial bias.Mulitauaopele v. Mulitauaopele, 25 A.S.R.2d 43.

The fact that an associate judge who heard a case at trial also heard the case on appeal, a violation of A.S.C.A. § 3.1007(b), was not a basis for reconsideration of the appeal where a quorum existed without the violating judge, the violating judge’s vote was not outcome determinative, the decision of the court was unanimous, and the complaining party waited until after the decision was rendered to object.Soli Corp. v. Amerika Samoa Bank, 25 A.S.R.2d 94.

If a party fails to object to the presence of an associate judge on the appellate panel until after the decision has been rendered, this failure constitutes a waiver of the objection.Soli Corp. v. Amerika Samoa Bank, 25 A.S.R.2d 94.

Recusal should never be undertaken lightly, but there are certain instances in which recusal is proper. In re Matai Title “Faumuina”, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

The standard of review applied to a courts denial of a request for recusal is, in accordance with A.S.C.A. § 43.0801(b), “clearly erroneous.”In re Matai Title “Faumuina”, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

Recusal is appropriate when an appointing governor appears in his capacity as an individual citizen before an appointee judge.In re Matai Title “Faumuina”, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

A judge has an obligation not to recuse himself or herself unless there is a need to do so.In re Matai Title “Faumuina”, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

There is a duty of recusal incumbent on an associate judge who finds himself or herself assigned to a case in which a governor who appointed the judge appears in his or her personal capacity.In re Matai Title “Faumuina”, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such person is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of the party.Canon of Judicial Conduct 3(C)(1)(d)(i).Atlantic, Pacific, Marine, Inc. v. Clarke, 31 A.S.R.2d 156.

A judge disqualified may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of his disqualification.If based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers may agree in writing that the judge is no longer disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding.However, the parties and lawyers must make such determine independently of the judge’s participation and in writing. Canon of Judicial Conduct 3(D).Atlantic, Pacific, Marine, Inc. v. Clarke, 31 A.S.R.2d 156.

Failure to file a formal, written motion to disqualify constitutes a waiver on the issue of a judge’s impartiality.Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d 33 (App. Div. 1997).

A judge’s impartiality is a pre-trial issue.Motions to disqualify judges made after trial are improper and untimely.Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d 33 (App. Div. 1997).

Under the “Rule of Necessity,” an interested judge is required to sit on a matter where it otherwise would not be heard.Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d33 (App. Div. 1997).

The “Rule of Necessity” requires judges to sit even when where they otherwise would be required to recuse themselves sua sponte.Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d33 (App. Div. 1997).

The “Rule of Necessity” is properly invoked where there is no evidence to suggest that sufficient replacement judges are available.Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d33 (App. Div. 1997).

The mere fact that a Justice presides over a similar matter involving the same party, does not in itself create bias or prejudice against the litigant.Fuavai v. District Court, 2 A.S.R.3d 56 (App. Div. 1998).

Absent special circumstances, the general rule is that a judge who presided at the trial of a case which was reversed and remanded on appeal is not automatically disqualified to retry the case. Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

This Territory has no statutory or constitutional prohibitions against the same judges retrying cases and controversies upon remand from the appellate division.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

Under A.S.C.A. § 3.1007, no judge or justice may sit on the appellate division and determine an appeal from a decision in which that judge or justice made or joined in at the trial court. Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

Under A.S.C.A. § 3.1007, a judge has a duty not to recuse himself unless there is a need to do so is, and this duty is not overridden where the alleged family ties of the judge are too tenuous, and where no circumstances indicate that the judge’s family members have a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the case. Alleged relationships which are too distant to support even an inference of the appearance of impartiality include a half-sister who is related to an extended family to which a party belongs, and a wife who may be a first cousin by marriage to a party’s step-father.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

The ancient common law Rule of Necessity which requires the adjudication of a controversy by a judge who is, by statute, canon, or other direct interest, disqualified from hearing that matter when no provision is made for calling in another judge or no other judge can take the disqualified judge’s place need not be applied where it is determined that judges who participate in a retrial were not, ipso facto, disqualified from sitting because of their participation in the first trial.Saunoa v. Suafa’i, 3 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1999).

A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.In Re Matai Title Tagoilelagi, 3 A.S.R.3d 66 (App. Div. 1999).

A judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned in proceedings where a disinterested observer would entertain significant doubt that justice would be done.In Re Matai Title Tagoilelagi, 3 A.S.R.3d 66 (App. Div. 1999).

Where judge’s failure to recuse himself found proper at trial court and issue decided under appropriate legal standard, reviewing court could nonetheless mandate recusal on remand out of an abundance of caution.In Re Matai Title Tagoilelagi, 3 A.S.R.3d 66 (App. Div. 1999).

§ 5(4)—Precedence and Stare Decisis

Purpose of stare decisis is to maintain uniformity and predictability of law, but not at expense of perpetuating manifest error.In re Matai Title Salave’a, 4 A.S.R. 44.

Although rule of stare decisis is basic, it must not be inflexibly applied if previous decision is erroneous.In re Matai Title Salave’a, 4 A.S.R. 44.

When Supreme Court has not had occasion to reconsider a precedent for almost a century, almost all applications of precedent have been overruled by statute, and Supreme Court has overruled similar precedents in closely related or analogous areas, lower court may conclude that the precedent no longer represents the law that would be applied by Supreme Court.Security Pacific National Bank v. M/V Conquest, 4 A.S.R.2d 59.

Rule of heredity that arose in previous trial court decision was not binding precedent when rule resulted from “judicial notice” of Samoan custom that ignored stark variation among different families’ practices, rule was stipulated by the parties rather than briefed, argued, and decided, and rule had been criticized in subsequent opinions of the appellate court.In re Matai Title “Tauaifaiva”, 5 A.S.R.2d. 13.

Decision of the highest court of a jurisdiction, including a decision of the Trial Division that was not appealed, should be followed by judge deciding subsequent case in the Trial Division unless there is some compelling reason not to do so.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

The fact that a trial judge would have decided an earlier case differently is not a compelling reason to disregard the principle of stare decisis and ignore the authority of the earlier case.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

Prior judicial decision was not a strong precedent when:(1) the decision resulted from a summary proceeding that did not include full briefing and argument by counsel; (2) the judge sitting in the later case was the same judge who had decided the prior case, so that there was no risk of casual disregard for the reflection and deliberation leading to the first decision; (3) the first decision was itself arguably an unfounded departure from precedent; and (4) both cases involved statutory interpretation, in which case the deciding court’s primary duty is one of fidelity to the enacted law.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

Alleged “informal practice of the High Court” prior to a contrary decision did not divest that decision of its value as precedent, where no reported decisions or other evidence established the rationale or even the definite existence of the practice.Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., v. S & S Contracting, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 70.

Village, county, and district councils have no power to veto a court decision, rendered after trial in accordance with statutory procedure, that a particular person is entitled to hold a matai title.A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 et seq.In re Matai Title Sotoa, 8 A.S.R.2d 10.

Warden who released prisoner in violation of court order, on the authority of invalid order of parole board, was in continuing violation of court order for as long as the prisoner remained at large.Atuatasi v. Moaali`itele, 8 A.S.R.2d 53.

Signature of judge on a court order certifies that the judge has in fact exercised his judgment, that the premises of the order are true, that the order itself is lawful, and that it is appropriate under all the circumstances that the order be given the force of law.Bank of Hawaii v. Ieremia, 8 A.S.R.2d 177.

Court was bound by its own judgment in a case decided eighty-two years earlier, whose parties were ancestors in title of the parties to the later case and in which the court had specifically defined the rights of the parties, notwithstanding any contrary implication in an even earlier decision of another court in which the parties and the questions before the court were somewhat different than in both later cases.Willis v. Fai`ivae, 10 A.S.R.2d 121.

A court must find facts consistently with the evidence before it, even if such findings conflict with prior findings made by a court deciding a prior case with different parties and different evidence.Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 11 A.S.R.2d 54.

Statement in a judicial opinion that was not necessary to the holding, on a question which was neither briefed nor argued by any party to the prior case, was not binding upon the court in deciding a subsequent case.Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 11 A.S.R.2d 54.

Stare decisis applies to questions of law and not of fact, to general propositions rather than to specific inquiries.Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 11 A.S.R.2d 54.

Where objectors to registration of land cited a prior case holding that the land belonged to them, but offered no surveys delineating the extent of their respective claims within the disputed area, the court would deny the offer of registration but would express no opinion with regard to the claims of the objectors beyond the holding in the prior case.Sivia v. Alaimalo, 13 A.S.R.2d 95.

A land registration in conflict with a Court order in a prior adjudication of land claims is void–or at least voidable in the absence of reliance by innocent third parties–for the same reasons that a registration would be without legal effect if it conflicted with an earlier valid registration.Fa`aaua`a v. Tauiliili, 15 A.S.R.2d 71.

Even if it would not exceed the Court’s power, declaring a prior judicial decision null and void, when witnesses have died and memories have faded in the intervening thirty years, would be imprudent and unjust because the Court at that time was in a much better position to determine the issues material as to whether land should be registered.Lualemana v. Atualevao, 16 A.S.R.2d 34

As a matter of law, an earlier survey registered in accordance with law prevails over a later one.Willis v. Fai`ivae, 17 A.S.R.2d 38.

The court is bound to recognize a land survey which has been registered according to law.A.S.C.A. § 37.0101 et seq.Willis v. Fai`ivae, 17 A.S.R.2d 38.

Informal statements of traditional Samoan custom and law are neither binding on the Court nor persuasive, as they do not represent a recitation of legal authority.Pene v. Bank of Hawaii, 18 A.S.R.2d 65.

Even if erroneous, a court’s decision as to whether a parcel of land is a person’s individual land or a family’s communal land is binding on later courts.Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 19 A.S.R.2d 40.

The doctrine of stare decisis applies only to questions of law, not questions of fact or applications of principles of law to particular facts.Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 19 A.S.R.2d 40.

A case is not overruled by a later case when they differ in findings of fact or issues raised and not in interpretation of law.Reid v. Puailoa, 23 A.S.R.2d 101.

Court orders entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, without the benefit of factual evaluation, may be vacated when a third party intervenes and a factual evaluation is necessary.Ala`ilima v. Zoning Board, 25 A.S.R.2d 146.

An order based on a material mistake of fact can be reopened and modified at the court’s discretion.Mobile Marine Ltd. v. Ninna Marianne, 28 A.S.R.2d 88.

It is inappropriate for the Trial Division to revisit a principle settled by the Appellate Division.Craddick Dev. Inc. v. Craddick, 28 A.S.R.2d 117.

Underlying values of res judicata must sometimes be balanced against the policies implicated by its application, but this principle does not mean that a decision can never be final simply because it implicates a compelling question of policy such as the protection of Samoan custom.Fanene v. Fanene, 30 A.S.R.2d 115.

§ 5(5)—Supervision of Proceedings and Litigation

There was no error in court’s questioning of attorney for lessee to determine whether his relationship with defendants was such that he was also liable under lease.Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.

It is not error of trial court to delineate evidence surrounding signing of lease and actions of attorney in procuring or omitting such signature, since trial court is judge of fact and law.Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.

Where defendant has important witness who is not available but he knows of witness at time of trial, he should apply for continuance.Tigi v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 902.

Court’s refusal to permit witness to testify with respect to potential title holder’s character, personality and knowledge of Samoan custom was not erroneous where it would have been cumulative and unnecessary since potential title holder testified himself; and there is no indication court doubted his testimony.Utu v. Aumoeualogo, 4 A.S.R. 906.

Trial judge has right to propound questions to witnesses to elicit pertinent facts; he may recall witnesses who have been examined; he may cross-examine; he may ask leading questions; and he may elicit any relevant and material evidence without regard to beneficial or prejudicial effect on either party.Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.

Trial court does not err in failing to consider witness present in court room when appellant did not call witness to testify.Willis v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 926.

Court’s statutory responsibility to supervise litigation involving minors imposes a duty on the court to exercise its own best judgment on the fairness of attorney fee arrangements.Oto v. National Pacific Insurance Co. (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 114.

Trial Court had discretion to dismiss action four years after it had been filed, eighteen months after court had given notice that the case would be dismissed unless good cause to the contrary should be shown, and one year after the date that counsel estimated he would move for trial, when no such motion had been made.Monte Kaho v. Ron Pritchard Ground Services, Inc., 4 A.S.R.2d 40.

Constitutional right to due process of law is not denied when a court which has repeatedly accommodated counsel’s unusual requests and overlooked procedural irregularities finally ceases to do so and dismisses the action.Monte Kaho v. Ron Pritchard Ground Services, Inc., 4 A.S.R.2d 40.

Pursuant to power to make “such order as to him may seem just” in any land case, Chief Justice or Associate Justice of High Court need not stop at denying plaintiff’s meritless claim for relief, but may issue preliminary injunction restraining plaintiff from interference with rights of defendant as delineated in earlier judgment.A.S.C.A. § 43.0304.Sialega v. Taito, 5 A.S.R.2d 99.

Trial judge may exclude spectators from the courtroom during testimony when necessary to protect or shield the witness; to prevent embarrassment or emotional disturbance; or to enable a reluctant witness to testify to material facts.American Samoa Gov’t v. Masaniai, 6 A.S.R.2d 114.

Trial judge properly decided, after a public hearing at which each spectator had an opportunity to express reasons for his or her desire to remain in the courtroom, that the public should be excluded during the testimony of a youthful rape victim when trial judge found that certain spectators wished to be present in order to intimidate the witness.American Samoa Gov’t v. Masaniai, 6 A.S.R.2d 114.

Exclusion of spectators from courtroom under exigent circumstances did not violate criminal defendant’s right to a public trial or the public’s right to be present.U.S. Const. amends. I, VI.American Samoa Gov’t v. Masaniai, 6 A.S.R.2d 114.

When a judgment creditor moves to seize property of the judgment debtor and court has determined that the property does belong to the judgment debtor, the property should ordinarily be held by the Court rather than by the creditor, the debtor, or the person previously in possession pending judicial determination of the creditor’s right to seize it.In re Guardianship of Tedrow, 7 A.S.R.2d 72.

Court did not deprive attorney of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, either by injury to his reputation or otherwise, where (1) attorney had represented judgment debtor; (2) attorney also represented other members of judgment debtor’s family; (3) after judgment, the judgment debtor and her family had agreed to changes in the record ownership of property formerly recorded as property of the judgment debtor, had arranged for the sale of the property, and had removed themselves from the territorial jurisdiction of the court; (4) attorney had in his possession the proceeds of the sale, which judgment creditor alleged to be the property of the debtor but which debtor and other family members claimed to be the property of other family members; (5) court had held the funds to be the property of the judgment debtor and subject to seizure by the judgment creditor; and (6) court ordered the funds to be deposited in the registry of the court pending further proceedings.In re Guardianship of Tedrow, 7 A.S.R.2d 72.

Trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, where plaintiff had testified at length and had had ample opportunity to present all the evidence needed for his case in chief, trial court assumed as true some evidence that plaintiff indicated he would have offered in rebuttal, and trial court’s decision was well supported in documentary evidence introduced during the plaintiff’s case.Willis v. Fai`ivae, 12 A.S.R.2d 37.

Trial judge has wide discretion in deciding whether to appoint an interpreter and need not accept defendant’s assertion that he needs one as dispositive, but must balance defendant’s right to confrontation and effective assistance against the public’s interest in the economical administration of criminal law.Kim v. American Samoa Gov’t, 17 A.S.R.2d 193.

Bringing an action in the wrong division of the High Court does not render the action or judgment a nullity; absent a showing that an erroneous caption made some practical difference, the proper remedy is to give the case a new caption.Jennings v. Jennings, 19 A.S.R.2d 34.

Consolidation is appropriate when actions having “a common question of law or fact are pending before the court.”T.C.R.C.P. 42(a).Pita v. Garrett, 29 A.S.R.2d 12.

With a common question of law or fact present, the court is permitted to order consolidation, with or without the parties’ consent, to serve the purpose of convenience and economy of administration, and is given broad discretion to decide whether consolidation is desirable.Pita v. Garrett, 29 A.S.R.2d 12.

While the prosecuting attorney has almost unfettered discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute a case, the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss a criminal complaint.T.C.R.Cr.P. 48(a).American Samoa Gov’t v. Su`a, 30 A.S.R.2d 43.

The court may refuse to dismiss a criminal case when it clearly and convincingly determines that dismissal would not be in the public interest.American Samoa Gov’t v. Su`a, 30 A.S.R.2d 43.

In order to determine whether dismissal of a criminal case serves the public interest, the court can require the prosecuting attorney to disclose his reasons for wishing to dismiss the case prior to a ruling thereon.American Samoa Gov’t v. Su`a, 30 A.S.R.2d 43.

A trial court may grant or deny, in its sound discretion, a continuance during trial to obtain a witness, which decision will not be overturned except upon a showing of clear abuse.A.S.G. v. Su`a, 31 A.S.R.2d 8.

In considering whether or not to grant or deny a continuance during trial to obtain a witness, the court must take into account such factors as the benefit the movant expects, the likelihood of producing the witness, the burden on the jurors, court and other witnesses, and foremost whether the continuance will achieve or nullify substantial justice.A.S.G. v. Su`a, 31 A.S.R.2d 8.

The court need not, and as a general rule will not, accept filings made after a matter has been submitted, particularly where the court specifically asked an attorney whether he would like additional time to make a filing, and he, in return, specifically answered that he would not.Clifton v. Voyager, 31 A.S.R.2d 12.

Where a court places property which is the subject of a dispute into the hands of a trustee prior to a final determination of the merits of the case this does not divest a party claiming ownership from asserting the party’s claim for legal and ownership title and rights to the property at the subsequent trial.Bendall v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 1 A.S.R.3d 16 (App. Div. 1997).

§ 5(6)—Supervision of Judgments and Settlements

SEE CIVIL PROCEDURE § 10(1) – ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

An order or judgment is entered for all purposes on the date any judicial writing is filed or any pronouncement made from the bench.High Court Rule 23.Judicial Memorandum, 4 A.S.R.2d 172.

A proffered “settlement” of an already litigated claim, purporting to “adjust” boundaries established by the court, has no effect when it (1) was never judicially approved; (2) resulted from negotiations between a licensed legal practitioner and an adverse party represented by counsel in the absence of the latter party’s counsel; (3) clearly results in disadvantage to the latter party; (4) was renounced by the latter party soon thereafter; and (5) bears a close resemblance to an earlier “settlement” asserted in court by the legal practitioner, the existence of which the adverse party denied immediately after having consulted his attorney.Te’o v. Sotoa, 5 A.S.R.2d 90.

Documents purporting to be settlements of prior disputes are customarily given stricter judicial scrutiny than contracts involving more palpable consideration, especially when the party drafting and pressing for the settlement is a business entity experienced in such transactions, the other party has no such experience and is unrepresented by counsel, the more experienced party employed threats or promises to encourage the other party to sign the document with little or no deliberation, and the consideration given by the more experienced party was relatively trivial.Development Bank v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 110.

In determining whether a business entity believes in good faith that its claim is just for the purpose of determining whether the claim can be consideration for a settlement, the entity is chargeable with the knowledge of its agents who participated in the transactions giving rise to the claim.Development Bank v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 110.

No reasonable person could conclude that creditor had agreed to a settlement proposed by debtor, and therefore no question of material fact was raised with respect to such settlement, where the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the debtor, was that (1) debtor had told creditor’s representative he had no intention of paying the debt but that he was willing to surrender a car that had been taken as collateral security; (2) creditor never verbally agreed to this proposal; (3) creditor had the legal right to take the car and then collect the remainder of the debt; (4) debtor had the subjective impression that creditor’s representative was happy to receive the car, since otherwise the creditor would receive nothing at all; (4) creditor never took the car.Bank of Hawaii v. Pene, 8 A.S.R.2d 30.

Proposed settlement of previously litigated land claim which purports to adjust the boundaries set by the court’s judgment should ordinarily be submitted to court for its approval.Estate of Sotoa v. Te`o, 8 A.S.R.2d 165.

Risk of abuse inherent in consent judgments ordinarily outweighs their usefulness as a means of saving time, at least in a jurisdiction where trial court routinely resolves uncontested matters by means of brief evidentiary hearings a few days after suit is filed.Bank of Hawaii v. Ieremia, 8 A.S.R.2d 177.

Court would not sign consent judgment where one party was represented by counsel, other side was unrepresented, consent judgment required unrepresented party to pay attorney fee that would not have been awarded if the case had been litigated, and court could not be sure that the principal amount had been correctly calculated.Bank of Hawaii v. Ieremia, 8 A.S.R.2d 177.

Signature by person unrepresented by counsel on document designated as settlement or consent judgment does not automatically entitle the document to judicial enforcement without prior judicial scrutiny.Bank of Hawaii v. Ieremia, 8 A.S.R.2d 177.

In an action for breach of an oral contract for the settlement of an outstanding electric bill, court would not find that the agreement included concessions by the electric company with regard to land disputes unrelated to the bill in question, where: (1) plaintiff’s documentary evidence of the existence of such terms was self-serving and prepared after the negotiations; (2) defendant’s representatives testified that there was no agreement on these terms; (3) notes made during the negotiations by defendant’s counsel reflected no agreement to such terms; (4) plaintiff himself had sought the settlement as an alternative to a trial scheduled the same day, over the objections of defendant’s counsel who had objected to a continuance for the purpose of settlement negotiations; (5) a stipulation signed by both parties at the conclusion of the negotiations had contained no reference to agreement on any collateral terms; (6) agreement to such terms would have been beyond the scope of defendant’s representatives’ authority; and (7) it made no business sense for defendant to agree to such terms.Pene v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 9.

Court presented with a settlement involving minor children would not approve a fee to an attorney from another jurisdiction who had not applied for admission pro hac vice and whose services, if any, constituted the unauthorized practice of law.Moananu v. American Samoa Gov’t (Mem.), 11 A.S.R.2d 100.

Court would not approve a settlement award to a deceased plaintiff who had been dismissed from the case with the acquiescence of plaintiffs’ counsel.Moananu v. American Samoa Government (Mem.), 11 A.S.R.2d 100.

Where counsel for plaintiff who died during the litigation did not move to substitute his client’s estate, but instead continued to litigate for two years, recovered certain funds, and then moved for distribution of the funds among widow and various unnamed children of the decedent, court would deny the motion and retain the funds pending qualification of an administrator of decedent’s estate.Te`o v. Continental Insurance Co. (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 42.

Not being vested with prosecutorial discretion, courts can approve a consent-decree provision limiting the defendants’ liability to ASG for past violations, but it is inappropriate for a court to enter an order prohibiting the prosecution of future violations of law.American Samoa Gov’t v. StarKist Samoa, Inc., 16 A.S.R.2d 27.

Court orders providing for property settlements, unlike orders for alimony, may not be modified by the court to reflect changes in the circumstances of the parties.Mahoney v. Mahoney, 16 A.S.R.2d 109.

A settlement will not ordinarily be enforced when (1) the party that drafted and pressed for the “settlement” is a business entity experienced in and familiar with such transactions; (2) the other party is an individual who has no such experience or familiarity and who generally signs the document without benefit of legal counsel; (3) the transaction was a whirlwind settlement in which there was no evidence that the weaker party negotiated, deliberated, or fully understood what he was giving up, and in which the stronger party employed threats or promises to encourage a quick decision; and (4) the exchange was lopsided, in that potentially valuable legal rights were surrendered by the weaker party in exchange for a small sum or other trivial consideration from the stronger party.Samoa Products, Inc. v. A`asa, 17 A.S.R.2d 66.

Merely recommending that an individual retain a lawyer cannot single handedly transform an unenforceable settlement in an enforceable one.Samoa Products, Inc. v. A`asa, 17 A.S.R.2d 66.

The “confession” situation must be distinguished from a settlement and compromise, in which each party makes a deliberate decision that the costs and risks of litigation exceed the possible advantages to be gained by it.Samoa Products, Inc. v. A`asa, 17 A.S.R.2d 66.

The High Court generally rejects plea agreements under T.C.R.Cr.P. 11 (e)(1)(C) that remove the court’s discretion in sentencing except in very rare occasions where the interests of justice were found to be better served by their acceptance.American Samoa Gov’t v. Masaniai, 28 A.S.R.2d 7.

The court may void a judgment even after the parties have subsequently entered into a settlement, even though the decision, as a practical matter, invalidates the settlement.Interocean Ships, Inc. v. Samoa Gases, 30 A.S.R.2d 170.

§ 5(7)—Contempt

SEE LEGAL PROFESSION § 4(2) – SANCTIONS

Courts have inherent power to ensure the integrity of court functions by punishing contempt of court, even in the absence of statutory contempt power.American Samoa Gov’t v. Godinet, 7 A.S.R.2d 127.

Criminal contempt statute authorizing the executive to prosecute certain conduct as criminal contempt of court does not limit court’s power to act on its own under general contempt statute.A.S.C.A. §§ 3.0203, 46.4617.American Samoa Gov’t v. Godinet, 7 A.S.R.2d 127.

General contempt statute may give rise to criminal liability despite existence of separate statute making certain acts criminal offenses.A.S.C.A. §§ 3.0203, 46.4617.American Samoa Government v. Godinet, 7 A.S.R.2d 127.

In certain circumstances, inexcusable neglect may constitute willful and contemptuous conduct and be punished as contempt of Court.Vaela’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 131 (Trial Div. 1997).

There is no right to appeal judgment of contempt.However, a contempt judgment may be contested by filing a writ of certiorari.Fuavai v. District Court, 2 A.S.R.3d 41 (App. Div. 1998).

§5(8)—Statutory Construction

SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 3(3)–STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the language of the statute must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.American Samoa Gov’t v. Williams, 4 A.S.R.3d 140 (Trial Div. 2000).

Where statute prohibited possession of “a controlled substance,” rather than “one or more controlled substances,” statutory language made the possession of one controlled substance an offense, and possession of more than one substance multiple offenses.American Samoa Gov’t v. Williams, 4 A.S.R.3d 140.

Although the starting point for interpretation of a statute is the language of the statute itself (and absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive), the court may also consider the wrong the statute seeks to prevent.TCW Special Credits, Inc. v. F/V Cassandra Z, 4 A.S.R.3d 154 (Trial Div. 2000).

Statutory interpretation is purely a question of law to be decided by the court.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

The starting point for interpretation of a statute is the language of the statute itself.Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

Courts may not read into a statute an implication that it does not warrant.Nua v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R.3d 208 (Trial Div. 2000).

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court must regard the plain wording of the statute as conclusive.Ripley v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 331 (Land & Titles Div. 2000).

The Court cannot read an implication into a statute that it does not warrant.Ripley v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.3d 331 (Land & Titles Div. 2000).

A statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning, avoiding any construction that would render a provision to be meaningless or nugatory.Isaia v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 6 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2002).

The meaning of a statute must be ascertained in light of its purpose.Faifaiese v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 6 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 2002).

Statutory interpretation is purely a question of law to be decided by the court.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

The purpose of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intention of the legislature.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

The first step in statutory interpretation is determining whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

When the words are either reasonably susceptible to different meanings, conflict with the overall statutory purpose, or cause absurd results, a court must look beyond literal statutory language.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

Where a statute is ambiguous, the court analyzes the design of the statute as a whole and its object and policy.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

The court may examine sources other than the statute’s language for evidence of legislative intent.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 6 A.S.R.3d 232 (Trial Div. 2002).

Neither the Governor nor any other member of the Executive Branch may undo what the Legislature of American Samoa has put in place as law without having a statutory basis for such action.Dameworth v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 6 A.S.R.3d 242 (Trial Div. 2002).

Courts cannot change what is clear on the face of the statute.TCW Special Credits v. F/V Cassandra Z, 7 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2003).

Where the issue is one of statutory interpretation, such is purely a question of law.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 7 A.S.R.3d 57 (Trial Div. 2003).

The Court is free to interpret the laws of American Samoa differently than similarly worded federal laws.Boral Gas of American Samoa, Inc. v. Iaulualo, 7 A.S.R.3d 57 (Trial Div. 2003).

§ 6Sovereign Rights

SEE TAXATION § 8 – SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

SEE TORTS § 10 – GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY ACT

Laches on part of government or officers of government is not defense to claim founded on sovereign right.Luce v. Pila, 3 A.S.R. 127.

Protection from a known and inherently dangerous condition is an operational rather than a discretionary function for which government has no sovereign immunity under statute.Neither may government avail itself of sovereign immunity when acting in a proprietary capacity, as in the rental of housing to its employees.Savage v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.2d 102 (Trial Div. 1983).

When the government knows of a dangerous condition, it is liable for damages caused by its failure to attempt to alleviate it.Savage v. Am. Samoa Govt, 2 A.S.R.2d 6 (App. Div. 1984).

Court would not grant motion to dismiss territorial government as defendant in shareholders’ derivative suit on the ground of sovereign immunity where government had created bank, made loans, executed mortgages, acquired stock in corporation, assumed management of the corporation, voted in corporate elections, and undertaken to sell the bank’s majority interest in the corporation, since such actions might have given rise to an implicit agreement to be held responsible for breach of obligations thus undertaken.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali, 3 A.S.R.2d 139.

Territorial immunity from suit may be implied from similarities between structures of American Samoan and state governments.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

American Samoa Government, immune from suit absent consent or waiver, is not a “person” for purposes of federal civil rights statute.42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Government Tort Liability Act does not constitute waiver of immunity from suit so as to give right of action against territorial government under federal civil rights law.A.S.C.A. § 43.1203 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Territorial government is not a “person” liable under federal civil rights law for conspiracy to violate federal rights.42 U.S.C. § 1985.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Sovereign immunity is premised on the notion that there can be no action to enforce a right against authority that created the right.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 160.

Territorial government whose consumer protection agency brought action in a representative capacity on behalf of a named individual, and which was not named as a plaintiff in its own right, could not recover damages in the consumer protection action for the loss of its own property.A.S.C.A. § 27.0402.American Samoa Gov’t ex rel. Langford v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 10 A.S.R.2d 1.

The power to expel aliens is a fundamental, sovereign power exercised by the political branches of government.American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, 17 A.S.R.2d 114.

The usual reason given for construing statutes of limitation for suits against the United States Government as jurisdictional (i.e., not subject to waiver and/or tolling)–that the limitations are deemed an integral part of the initial waiver of sovereign immunity, which should not be extended by courts beyond the intent of Congress–does not apply to ASG.Randall v. American Samoa Gov’t, 19 A.S.R.2d 111.

Sovereign Immunity protects the American Samoa Government from any claim based upon the exercise or performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function or duty on the part of an officer or employee, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.Ala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 163 (Trial Div. 1998).

Governmental conduct at the planning stage should usually be considered discretionary, while the actions government specifically undertakes to carry out its programs and policies should usually be considered operational.Ala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 163 (Trial Div. 1998).

Routine cleaning or maintenance is not a discretionary governmental function but is operational in nature.Ala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 163 (Trial Div. 1998).

When sovereign immunity is waived, the government is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.Ala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 163 (Trial Div. 1998).

Generally, the burden is on the officer accused of unlawful conduct to prove entitlement to immunity.Afele-Fa`amuli v. Am. Samoa Cmty. Coll., 4 A.S.R.3d 219 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 7Public Records

SEE EVIDENCE § 10 – CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS & PHOTOGRAPHS

Most information available from chief executive of state or territory can be just as easily obtained from lesser officials.Fa’atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.

The language of A.S.C.A. § 10.0603 does not contemplate or give any direction regarding the disclosure of financial records to individual members of either house, and falls well short of creating the “plain duty” and “plain right” required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

A record is a public record if it is required to be kept by law, or is kept in furtherance of some other duty required by law, or which is meant to serve as a memorial of something done by a person in his/her capacity as a public official.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

Private individuals cannot assert priority over public officials in the use of public documents for purposes such as auditing.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

The right to review public records is not absolute.The law requires that the interests of the individual seeking the record be weighed against the public interest in confidentiality.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

Where a record contains some private information, mingled with public information, mandamus may compel an official to allow supervised copying of the public portions of the record while omitting the private.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

A duty to disclose information exists when: (1) the information is public record; and (2) petitioner’s interest in the information outweighs any public interest in preventing disclosure of the information; or (3) the Constitution or a statute requires disclosure.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

Where the right to view a public record is established, mandamus may compel disclosure of the record by whoever is preventing such disclosure.Lutu v. Ale, 28 A.S.R.2d 43.

§ 8Government Employees

SEE EMPLOYMENT LAW § 4 – GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT

Get In Touch!

About Us