Cuison-Villazor: US citizenship in CNMI highlights ‘instability’ amid high court case

A Saipan-raised law professor says the Northern Mariana Islands’ unique path to U.S. citizenship underscores both its value and vulnerability, as the Trump v. Barbara case heads before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Speaking during a virtual panel hosted by Right to Democracy last March 27, Rutgers Law professor Rose Cuison-Villazor, who grew up on Saipan, placed the CNMI at the center of the broader debate on citizenship in U.S. territories.

Cuison-Villazor said the CNMI stands apart from other territories because its people were able to negotiate citizenship as part of their political union with the United States.

She said, “So the CNMI can be thought of as an example of what happens when people are given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and be able to negotiate what might be the terms of their agreement. And one of the key points that they negotiated at the time was to have protection over their land…so that there would be a restriction on the alienation of their land only for people of Northern Marianas descent.”

Cuison-Villazor added that “this U.S. citizenship was part of the package deal that the delegates of the Marianas district did or negotiated for during the Covenant of Political Discussions.”

She emphasized that this distinction remains critical in understanding how citizenship operates differently across territories, particularly compared to places where citizenship was later granted by Congress.

At the same time, Villazor cautioned that even in the CNMI, citizenship exists within a broader framework controlled by federal law and political decision-making.

She said, “the experience of the former and current U.S. territories about how they acquired U.S. citizenship by statute…is something that needs to still be considered. It tells us about what happens then, the instability of citizenship and what that means when power is being exercised by the political branch.”

Cuison-Villazor warned that such instability has real consequences, saying it could lead “to the subordination of people…in the Barbara versus Trump case, subordination of children of immigrants, whether temporary or unauthorized in the United States.”

She also pointed to the CNMI covenant as proof that citizenship and self-determination can coexist.

She said, “the covenant’s 50th anniversary…is a reminder of how self-determination was exercised there. Birthright citizenship was part of it. But if somehow the citizenship clause did apply, it wouldn’t have taken away the covenant…they can co-exist. It’s been done in the Northern Marianas.”

She added that “they chose to become a U.S. territory. They chose to become citizens…there was a negotiation between the Marianas people and members of the United States. And that’s the hope…that other territories will be in a position where they can also exercise their right to self-determination.”

The broader legal debate traces back to U.S. expansion following the Spanish-American War, when citizenship in newly acquired territories like Guam and Puerto Rico was left unresolved.

Legal historian Sam Erman said that prior to that period, the rule was clear. He said “the rule in the United States is birthplace-based citizenship, regardless of race,” citing the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision.

But Columbia Law professor Christina Ponsa-Kraus said U.S. policy after 1898 deliberately created ambiguity. She said treaty language “almost goes out of its way to say we’re not going to even answer this question right now.”

That ambiguity allowed federal authorities to treat territories as both inside and outside the United States for different purposes, creating what panelists described as a long-standing legal gray area.

While the pending Supreme Court case centers on birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, panelists said its outcome could influence how courts interpret constitutional protections more broadly—including for Guam and the CNMI.

For Cuison-Villazor, the CNMI’s negotiated citizenship remains a powerful example of self-determination—but also a reminder that, across the territories, citizenship has never been entirely beyond the reach of political change.

Trump v. Barbara is a landmark case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 25-365) concerning the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.

The case centers on whether Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, can lawfully deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Following a preliminary injunction against the order in July 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment, with oral arguments scheduled for April 1, 2026.