Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith
Headline: Court strikes down Virgin Islands law letting people get divorces after six weeks’ presence, blocking easy out-of-state divorces and curbing a tourism-driven divorce business.
Holding: The Court held that Congress did not authorize the Virgin Islands legislature to enact §9(a) allowing jurisdiction based on six weeks’ presence, and affirmed the lower courts’ invalidation of that law.
- Makes it harder for nonresidents to obtain quick divorces in the Virgin Islands.
- Reduces a tourism-driven legal market for divorces and related local revenue.
- Leaves other constitutional challenges undecided and could prompt future litigation.
Summary
Background
A woman filed for divorce in the Virgin Islands after saying she had lived there continuously for 43 days. The husband appeared through local counsel and did not contest the proceedings. A local commissioner recommended a divorce, but the District Court, relying on earlier rulings, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the question of the Islands’ power to adopt the six-week rule.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Congress had given the Virgin Islands legislature authority to pass a law that treated six weeks of physical presence as enough for divorce jurisdiction. The majority said no. It relied on the Organic Act’s grant of power only over subjects “of local application” and found § 9(a) was aimed at attracting nonresidents and generating business, not regulating local relations. The Court pointed to legislative statements and high divorce statistics as evidence that the law was designed for export. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the lower courts’ invalidation of the six-week rule.
Real world impact
The decision makes it harder for out-of-state visitors to obtain quick divorces in the Virgin Islands and reduces a ready forum for vacation divorces. It curbs a tourism-driven legal market that had produced unusually high divorce rates on some islands. The Court did not decide other constitutional questions, so further litigation on related issues could follow.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented, arguing Congress intended broad local power, that the statistics and motives were irrelevant, and that the Court should defer to legislative choices; they would have reversed.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?