Limtiaco v. Camacho (2007),[note 2][note 3] 549 U.S. 483, is a case of the United States Supreme Court which handled a complex taxation dispute between two Guamanian politicians—Douglas B. Moylan, Guam's first elected Attorney General, and Felix P. Camacho, then-Governor of Guam—involving the proper interpretation of the Guam Organic Act.

While the case was originally brought by Moylan to promote fiscal conservatism, ironically, when it reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the minority remarked in its dissent that actually the Government of Guam could, sua sponte, sidestep the debt ceiling by doubling the assessed value of property while halving the tax rate of that same property in one Public Law, entirely contrary to Moylan's stated goals of enforcing federal sovereignty in the unincorporated territory.

Desiring to raise funds, he wished to issue bonds to investors backed by the Guamanian government, a common practice internationally.

[3] Camacho filed suit against Moylan for his refusal—Moylan was Guam's first elected attorney general, and so could not be removed by the Governor from office as he could do with any other member of his Cabinet.

[7]: 10 On July 23, in an opinion penned by Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido, the Court ruled for Camacho, dismissing Moylan's concern, and declared the issuance of the bonds legal.

[8] Oral argument was heard before the Ninth Circuit at the James R. Browning United States Court of Appeals Building in Honolulu, Hawaii on 6 May 2004.

[9] Congress, however, failed to clarify what it intended to happen when cases had already been submitted to and argued before the justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[T]he Governor mistakenly argues that we owe deference to the Guam Supreme Court's interpretation of its Organic Act.

On the question of whether it had jurisdiction, the Court was unanimous; ruling that while there is a ninety day period for the filing of writs of certiorari in 28 U.S.C.

[11] The majority answered these criticisms by writing that "most States have long based their debt limitations on assessed value without incident".

While the case was originally brought by Moylan to promote fiscal conservatism, ironically, when it reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the minority remarked in its dissent that actually the Government of Guam could, sua sponte, sidestep the debt ceiling by doubling the assessed value of property while halving the tax rate of that same property in one Public Law, entirely contrary to Moylan's stated goals of enforcing federal sovereignty in the unincorporated territory.