The government's brief in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case pending at the Supreme Court, is due today. The issue in Vaello-Madero is whether it's constitutional to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico and other territories.
President Biden has expressed support for legislation extending SSI to territories but there is little hope that legislation will pass. His Administration has not yet taken a position in Vaello-Madero.
The traditional principle has been that the Solicitor General, who handles cases for the federal government at the Supreme Court, should defend the constitutionality of any statute. Even before Trump came to office there had been exceptions to this princriple. The Trump Administration completely abandoned the tradition of defending the constitutionality of legislation it opposed. Joe Biden is a very traditional President but this case provides a strong temptation to abandon tradition.
The Solicitor General has already obtained two extensions of time to file a brief. In support of the last request for an extension of time, the Solicitor General said that "the brief requires consultation with a number of components of the government."
Extending SSI to Puerto Rico would be a big deal. There have been estimates that several hundred thousand people could qualify for benefits. Handling all those claims with no phase in and no time to prepare would be an enormous logistical challenge for the Social Security Administration that would affect operations across the entire country.
Update: The government hasn't yet filed its brief but the President has released a statement saying that although he believes that SSI should be available in territories that his Administration will follow the conventional practice and defend the constitutionality of the statute.
Further update: The Solicitor General had finally filed a brief. Don’t expect anything original in the brief. There’s a lot of talk about the income tax not applying to Puerto Rico and stare decisis.
13 comments:
I see a big detail for bilingual ALJs who can help with the SSI cases and can work from anywhere 8n the country!
It might not be that difficult to phase in. A disability determination has to be done first. So much SSA business is done on the phone, they'll be able to move this along.
Trump wasn't the first President to not defend legislation. Obama did the same thing and probably others before him.
Kind of two-faced from Biden. Saying it is inconsistent with his values but will let the DOJ defend the statute. Take a stand. Not being able to handle SSI claimants in a reasonable manner is just not a good enough excuse.
I have repped many SSDI claimant in territories like Puerto Rico and Guam. Those citizens should also have SSI available if eligible. Only fair.
The important question is what does Pres. Joe Manchin think of extending SSI to PR?
Annnnyway, why is it not an ethical mandate that the US government defend the constitutionality of laws? There would be a problem with a president who personally opposes a law saying "Huh, this law that I can't seem to repeal through Congress is being challenged in court (maybe with my own encouragement...). Welp, time to decide it's not constitutional and stop defending it in court." This is a separation of powers issue and an abuse of position issue. The DOJ represents the government and not the president as a political actor.
Brief coming on Monday
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/557166-biden-administration-will-defend-excluding-puerto-ricans-from
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/557166-biden-administration-will-defend-excluding-puerto-ricans-from
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-303/181129/20210607194124315_20-303tsUnitedStates.pdf
I predict the conservative majority will find that it is entirely constitutional and state that it is within the discretion of Congress to deny the program to the territories.
They'll justify it by pointing out that the SSI program is funded from general federal tax revenues, while Puerto Rico residents (despite being US Citizens) are not subject to US Federal income taxes. As they don't pay the taxes that support the SSI program, they don't qualify to benefit from SSI.
We'll see how it works out.
All that said, there is "defending" and then there is "DEFENDING". A lot of what will happen may depend upon how rigorously the Solicitor General is told by the White House to actually defend the law. Should be some interesting arguments, anyway.
@10:54 the Us citizens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands also do not pay any federal income taxes. Similarly situated in every way to PR but they get SSI. Guam, just south of them, also a US Possession also no SSI.
anon@3:36pm,
10:54 here.
The Covenant that established the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands as authorized by Congress in 1976 specifically includes eligibility of residents for the SSI program (which had been in existance since 1972).
The SSI program did not exist when the other territories were established, and Congress has never seen fit to amended the law to include any of them.
Again, all this was and is at the discretion of Congress.
I stand by my prior prediction.
The law has no sense of fairness about it, and has not in a long time. For the most part, it operates under the "some pigs are more equal than others" doctrine.
@10:54/6:07
1. The conservative majority may be unwilling to side with the administrative state at the expense of individual rights, so it's not a foregone conclusion that they would side with SSA. I expect the left wing will be more tolerant to side with SSA on this issue.
2. SSI is funded with general treasury funds, which yes is predominantly funded by federal income taxes, but there are other types of federal taxation also going in, which PR residents do pay (import/export tax for example, which is significant given PR's geography). Also, SSI eligibility does not require the recipient be a taxpayer (and generally, due to how SSI is offset by DIB, being a taxpayer tends to lower SSI benefits or exclude you entirely if your PIA exceeds SSI). Further, PR residents pay federal income tax if their employment touches the mainland, meaning the vast majority DO pay federal income tax. Finally, yeah NMI negotiated SSI eligibility as part of their covenant with Congress. Cool. That doesn't validate Congress' choice to exclude PR, and they couldn't have intentionally meant to exclude PR from SSI at the time PR became a territory because SSI didn't exist at the time. The NMI weakens the argument that this is some sort of cost-saving measure, because Congress agreed to extend it to NMI, despite the costs. There's no dispute Congress can choose to exclude PR from SSI, but that doesn't make that choice lawful. Discrimination isn't inherently unlawful either, don't get me wrong, but the fact that Congress chose to do something doesn't mean a Court has to uphold it, especially if there isn't a sufficient basis for doing so.
3. The actual issues involved are not as broad as people are saying. The recipient got on SSI while living in NY, and the overpayment is alleged due to him moving to PR without telling SSA that he "left the United States" and would therefore be ineligible to continue to receive SSI. I suspect the Court will say, no overpayment due to never having left the United States, but leave the question of actual eligibility while residing in PR an open question so as to not disturb the status quo.
The law isn't necessarily fair, but in the modern era the courts have consistently ruled against congress acting without a sufficient basis for doing so. Congress is free to try and justify their actions, and that's DoJ's argument, but these arguments are pretty weak and both the District and Circuit Courts have already ruled against SSA on this issue. Obviously SCOTUS isn't bound by those decisions, but I don't think the odds are good SCOTUS will side with SSA, at least not in full.
Post a Comment