After yesterday's oral argument before the Supreme Court I had expressed optimism that the Court would find it unconstitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico. Others, including a writer for the highly-regarded SCOTUSblog, felt otherwise.
Let me explain. There were a number of questions asked by the justices about whether finding this exclusion unconstitutional would trigger litigation claiming denial of equal protection because certain laws favor one state or one region over another. Although the attorney representing Mr. Vaello-Madero could have done a better job of expressing it, the answer seemed simple to me. This sort of lawsuit can already be brought but seldom is because all that is required to withstand an equal protection challenge is a "rational basis" for a law. That's a minimal requirement that would normally be met. It's just that in this case, the exclusion of SSI is so obnoxious that it cannot even meet a minimal requirement. If a statute is found that is as obnoxious as this one, then by all means the Court should find it unconstitutional but such a statute should be almost nonexistent. The states have representation in Congress. Puerto Rico doesn't. My interpretation of the questioning was that the Justices want to make sure they write a narrow decision finding it unconstitutional to deny SSI in Puerto Rico and were inquiring about how they should do it. Another interpretation would be that the justices were expressing reasons why it would be too dangerous to give relief to Mr. Vaello-Madero.
Anyway, listen to the oral argument yourself and tell us what you think.
From what I've read about the case, the anticipated cost of paying SSI to PR residents would be around $2 billion per year. The rationale of saving money easily satisfies the rational basis test. Just as strict scrutiny is called "strict in theory, fatal in fact," almost anything can be upheld under a rational basis inquiry.
ReplyDeleteI can see SCOTUS trying to distance themselves from the insular cases, but still uphold the statutory restriction on SSI as constitutionally valid.
I'd like a citation for the $2 billion number. The news stories I read estimated 700,000 possible eligibles, and if every one got the max SSI rate it's be less than $600 million a year, which is a lot less than saying $2 billion.
ReplyDeleteThe "$2 billion" number likely refers to SSA's 2020 estimate:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SSIEligExt_20200611.pdf
The "700,000" number seems way too high. It's probably less than half that.
Off subject but here's a tidbit. I was in OGC at Woodlawn (it was OGC-HEW SS Division or Branch or some such at that point) when SSI went up and running. The first SSI checks were yellow. This resulted in protests because some client groups thought it stigmatized recipients. So it was changed to the same green as SS checks in short order.
ReplyDeleteSSI checks were still gold in the early to mid 80s. Made it easier for us to know what they were receiving.
Deletehttps://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SSIEligExt_20200611.pdf
ReplyDeleteVaello-Madero's attorney whiffed swinging for the fences when the bases are loaded and a walk wins the game. A pretty clear majority of justices expressed skepticism with the government's rationale tying the exclusion to the taxes PR pays. Instead of hammering that argument the respondent pushed for a grossly overbroad ruling that would upend a host of federal policies. When Justice Sotomayor tells you you're asking for too much, you probably should listen.
ReplyDelete