I had posted earlier on the opinion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals that it is unconstitutional to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to an American citizens living in Puerto Rico even though that same person is eligible if living in one of the 50 states (or the Northern Marianas). We'll see what Social Security does about that ruling. My guess is that they think about it and then file a petition asking the Court to rehear the case en banc, that is by all members of the First Circuit Court of Appeals rather than by a three judge panel, as is normally the case.
It's worth noting that Puerto Rico isn't the only U.S. territory with this sort of litigation. There's also a case pending in the U.S. District Court for Guam and there should be a decision in that one soon. The case in Guam presents the issue more directly than the Puerto Rico case since it concerns a claim for benefits as opposed to an overpayment allegedly created when a person who was getting SSI moved from New York to Puerto Rico.
The Guam case may not matter since it isn't as far along as the Puerto Rico case and since Guam is so much smaller than Puerto Rico but that case also holds out the prospect of the Supreme Court refusing to hear the Puerto Rico case because there has been no disagreement between Courts of Appeals on the issue of SSI in territories. Disagreement between Courts of Appeals is the most important reason why the Supreme Court agrees to hear cases. I'm not sure exactly where it leaves Social Security if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the Puerto Rico case since it doesn't directly involve a claim for benefits.
By the way, I've been surprised that Social Security didn't raise the defense of res judicata in the Puerto Rico case. Presumably, Social Security first declared the overpayment administratively before suing to get a judgment on the overpayment. If the agency did, it looks as if the claimant didn't appeal. Arguably, the claimant should have raised any defense to the overpayment at that time rather than later when he was sued. If the government sued first without giving the claimant an opportunity to fight the overpayment administratively, I think he was denied all the process he was due. Perhaps both parties were eager to get to the constitutional issue.
4 comments:
Why would SSA WANT to get to the constitutional phase? This only makes sense IF the people in charge if this case WANT to give SSI to Puerto Rico. I think it is MUCH more likely that arrogance exposed the agency to the possibility of having to pay SSI to anyone in PR. The SMART thing to do eould have been to stop payong this person, but not trying to collect the "overpayment." Kind of reminds me of the IRS agents in the Mating Game with Debbie Reynolds and Tony Randall. Fred Clark: I think we can take them for $50,000. His boss: Which exposed us to owing them $14 million!
@Tim
If SSA wanted to extend SSI to Puerto Rico, all they would have had to do is not appeal the District Court's judgment to the First Circuit. So no, this isn't a result of SSA leadership's secret desire to expand a government program. As to why SSA would want to get to the constitutional phase, agencies fight tooth-and-nail to maintain their independence from Courts as much as they can. Courts also tend to avoid constitutional issues if they can help it. So this outcome likely wasn't expected by SSA.
11:29 AM What makes you think that I think that SSA WANTS to give SSI to Puerto Rico? What I was saying is that ARROGANCE led SSA to miscalculate. This Agency and others often act as if they were above their own rules and the law. This seems to be a character flaw of Administrative Law.
@Tim
Sorry, I misread your second sentence.
Post a Comment