Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Are there any laws, to legally make a territory in the Fascist States of America autonomous without invoking the 'feds'?
Executive Summary
The available evidence shows there is no legal path under current U.S. law for a territory or a substate region to become truly autonomous without involving the federal government; federal constitutional structures and court precedent assign control over territories and unilateral secession to Congress and the courts (Texas v. White principles) rather than to local actors [1] [2] [3]. Recent state-level proposals to create “autonomous regions” are political experiments that still require either state constitutional amendments or federal authorization to change legal status, so they do not circumvent federal authority [4] [5].
1. A Political Pitch in Washington, Not a Legal Shortcut: What Rob Chase’s Proposal Really Means
Washington State Representative Rob Chase’s April 24, 2025 proposal to create two “autonomous regions” inside Washington signals a political response to rural‑urban tensions, but it is not a standalone constitutional route to independence from federal law. The measure as described would require a state constitutional amendment and a two‑thirds legislative vote to alter internal governance structures, which means its immediate legal effect is to change state law and state constitutional arrangements, not to override federal authority or to transform a region’s relation to the United States. The proposal illustrates a state‑level pathway for internal autonomy within a state, but any alteration that touches on national sovereignty, federal obligations, or territorial status would still trigger federal review or require congressional action [4].
2. Oregon’s Idea Shows a Different Tactic, But the Same Constraint: State Tools, Federal Limits
Discussions in Oregon, including the “Greater Idaho” discourse and proposals for autonomous regions, show that some jurisdictions see citizen initiatives or state constitutional mechanisms as more accessible ways to reallocate power internally [5]. Oregon’s initiative process allows voters to place constitutional amendments on the ballot, which could create formally recognized autonomous administrative arrangements under state law. Yet the existence of state‑level autonomy does not equate to freedom from federal law: the Tenth Amendment reserves unspecified powers to states and people, but it does not authorize a state or region to ignore federal supremacy, nor does it provide a legal basis for a territory to sever federal oversight without congressional consent [6] [7] [8] [3].
3. Constitutional Reality: Territories, the Territory Clause, and Plenary Congressional Power
Under the Constitution’s Territory Clause (Art. IV §3) and the doctrine that followed the Insular Cases, Congress holds plenary authority over U.S. territories, including the power to define their incorporation, self‑government, and path to statehood; no statute currently permits a territory to unilaterally convert itself into an autonomous polity exempt from federal control [1]. Legal scholars and compilations collected in collections on secession and self‑determination underline that U.S. domestic law lacks a recognized mechanism for unilateral secession or for creating autonomous status without federal authorization, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas v. White remains a controlling precedent that bars unilateral withdrawal from the Union [2] [3].
4. Comparative Models Abroad Don’t Translate into U.S. Legal Autonomy Without Federal Buy‑In
International examples of autonomous administrative divisions—such as Greenland or the Faroe Islands within the Kingdom of Denmark, or China’s special administrative regions—illustrate that autonomy can be constructed by central states through legal instruments, not by local unilateral declarations [9]. These foreign models demonstrate the principle that autonomy is typically a delegated, negotiated status created by the sovereign government. By analogy, any U.S. autonomy arrangement would likewise require delegation or consent from the sovereign authority within the U.S. constitutional framework—that sovereign authority being Congress and the federal constitutional order in the case of territories, or the state government in the case of internal regional autonomy [9] [1].
5. Bottom Line: Political Routes Exist; Legal Routes Require Federal or Constitutional Action
Practical routes to greater local self‑governance include state constitutional amendments, legislative creation of administrative regions, or negotiated statutes approved by Congress—each pathway is political and legal, not unilateral. Proposals like those in Washington and Oregon reflect political strategies to reallocate power within states and to make governance more locally responsive, but they do not provide a lawful mechanism for a territory to attain autonomy without federal involvement. The durable legal conclusion across constitutional commentary, case law, and the Territory Clause is that any change in territorial or national status requires action by Congress or a constitutional amendment, not merely local or state fiat [4] [5] [1] [2] [3] [6].