Matt Ford has written an interesting piece for TNR on the background of the Supreme Court case on whether it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. There's little question about it. This and other distinctions were made in the case of Puerto Rico due to racism. As Ford writes:
... In Dawnes v. Bidwell, the first of the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court described Puerto Rico and other newfound colonial possessions as “inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought,” where “the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.” ...
We will not know the outcome for months, but my crystal ball prediction is that SCOTUS will not extend SSI to PR. It will likely say that if Congress meant Title XVI to include the territories, it would have legislated such. Only Congress can correct this injustice.
ReplyDelete@9:49
ReplyDeleteSSI is available in the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory, so SSA will need to argue Congress can discriminate within the territories as well. In 1963, PR submitted to Congress, and was approved, to receive assistance through AABD which was a predecessor to SSI. Congress replaced that system, except in PR (and I imagine the other territories other than NMI) where it still operates. The difference is, AABD pays $74 a month, far less than SSI. That's a problem since it makes clear Congress is fully capable of sending assistance to the states and territories equally, only remaining silent on all the territories other than NMI.
Another issue is, respondent was awarded SSI in NY where he resided. He moved back to PR. SSA argues PR is "outside the United States." No it is not.
Finally, a common argument is PR residents don't pay federal taxes. Setting aside the fact that being a taxpayer is irrelevant to qualifying for SSI, PR residents actually do if their employment extends outside of PR, which is the majority of PR residents. And NMI residents don't pay federal taxes regardless, yet they get SSI?
Charitably, I find Congress' lack of action not for any fiscal, political, or even rationale basis, but due to ignorance of the issue and I doubt SCOTUS will permit that as a valid basis for discriminating against US citizens.
Well, I hope you are right and I am wrong. I did not know about the NMI. That is inconsistent and something the supremes may consider. The residents of PR ARE US citizens as are those in USVI, despite what the former Administration thought.
ReplyDelete@2:41
ReplyDelete10:56 here, ha! I hope I am to. I'm pretty pessimistic in all things, but hopeful. Maybe the chaos it would cause to SSA (still necessarily in my opinion) would weigh in favor with the conservative justices. Silver linings.
I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on tv, but I'd wonder if a key issue is the content of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and if it differs in some way to allow it access to SSI, while others don't. My eyes glazed over tried to read it but it's kind of interesting what the nuts and bolts items listed are.
ReplyDelete@11:49
ReplyDeleteNot a lawyer either, but the key issue isn't whether the covenant for NMI should permit SSI, at least no one is arguing it can't. It is interesting I agree. I expect it's a result of NMI being the only territory created AFTER SSI, meaning the NMI residents were aware they could request (and Congress granted their request) access to the program when they asked to be a territory. I would be curious if the other territories have attempted to request from Congress access, or if there is even a method to make such a request.
The issue is, back in the first half of the 20th century, SCOTUS said some territories were on the path to statehood (AZ, New Mexico, etc.), so they should have greater rights and protections than other territories (PR, Guam, etc.) Part of the distinction was on the basis that the US took PR and Guam (and Cuba and Philippines but they are no longer territories/protectorates) not at the request of the territories involved but as a result of winning the Spanish-American war, from Spain as spoils of war. This is known as the "Insular Cases," and the concern is whether that's permissible. Insular Cases say it is, but SCOTUS hearing the case suggests they are at least considering overruling those cases.