Earlier this week I had noted that 16 of the 19 of the cases argued before the Supreme Court around the same time as U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, the case presenting the issue of whether it is constitutional to deny SSI to U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, had already been decided. My point was to expect a decision soon. The decision was announced today in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero. In an 8-1 decision the Court held that it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits in U.S. territories. Justice Sotomayor was the only dissenter. This issue goes back to the political arena.
Social Security has dodged a bullet. The agency would have had a terrible time dealing with an avalanche of SSI claims from Puerto Rico. If Congress does change the law so residents of U.S. territories can get SSI, the agency will have time to fully plan and staff up for the change and the change can be phased in.
Gorsuch's dissent is annoying as he says the insular cases should be overruled because our fellow Americans in PR deserve no less; but apparently, they don't deserve equal treatment under the law. In any event, while Sotomayor's dissent says she concurs with Gorsuch on that point, I suppose it does not matter. Still 8-1 and the majority doesn't touch the insular cases at all.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would note, it's incredibly absurd that Kavanaugh (and Roberts for that matter) was nominated by a party that objects to result-driven jurisprudence. The majority appears to rest on the fact that it would expose PR to the economic hardship of inflation due to the influx of SSI benefits. Yeah that happens when you create a pocket of depressed economic productivity through laws: precluding foreign trade, don't permit them to receive the full range of federal benefits, and exploit the local resources.
Absurd.
Denying equal rights to brown people has been the American way since our country's inception. Why would we expect them to make a significant change at this point. Unreal
ReplyDelete👍🏻
ReplyDelete@12:28 - I don't think, in this situation, that it has to do with color. It has to do with money (as always, the most important thing to the government), and taxing issues. I do agree with you, however, on the issues facing those of color. It's not right, it's not fair. But like I said, in this instance, it has to do with taxation and money. Greed? Law? ....and the US's obsession with retaining money? Those of color, I stand with you. It's unequal, unfair, and goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. In this case, it's the money, I believe.
ReplyDelete@2:02
ReplyDelete11:31 here. The Court's assertion is that the harm done by the influx of SSI benefits would be a disruption to local traditions and economy through inflation and Congress has discretion to avoid that harm. Not that the savings on costs are significant.
Gorsuch was not dissenting. He was concurring, but also invited future Plaintiffs to raise a different arguments for overturning the statute.
ReplyDeleteThe rational basis test is very deferential standard. Sotomayor made a somewhat compelling argument for why this standard wasn't met, but I can see why this is an 8-1 decision.
This is a case which is clear cut enough that it probably should not have progressed beyond the appellate stage. To boil it down, the constitution treats territories differently, Congress has immense discretion in how it spends money, and these factors were more important than the fifth amendment equal protection argument. There are now two paths towards extending SSI to Puerto Rico: statehood or Congressional action on revising SSI.
ReplyDeleteSotomayor's dissent was disappointing (dang it woman, you are my second favorite justice!) in its failure to more forcefully take on the strengths of the majority opinion, so it is not surprising that she failed to flip Breyer or Kagan. (Although the tea leaves from the oral argument suggested that that would rule with the majority).
Legally, this case is most likely going to be remembered for Gorsuch's concurrence. It was not only legally and morally crystal clear, but was also more blatant than normal signal to litigators, and district and appellate judges on the sorts of arguments which will find a friendly hearing at SCOTUS.
Sotamayor called the majority out pretty well on the money/taxes issue. The majority had to pretend not to notice the holes that she pointed out. The Northern Mariana Islands is a territory as well and any income taxes the US collects there are remitted to the territory government. They get SSI and PR does not? Nobody poor enough to qualify for SSI pays income taxes wherever in the US they may live. Consider you could live in any state in the U.S., pay taxes there all your life, and just because you move to PR for a month you lose SSI? It’s not really about the money or taxes and they knew it.
ReplyDeleteThe majority agreed with the argument that depriving destitute disabled and aged citizens of subsistence level cash benefits is a rational way to economically help them. That’s mind boggling, in a let them eat cake kind of way.
It would be nice for Congress to extend SSI to PR, but I'm sure Pres. Manchin won't allow it.
ReplyDeleteActually the decision mentions PR has another system in place already instead of SSI. Anyone look to see what that program is and how it works or if it’s similar?
ReplyDeletePuerto Ricans want SSI then they can start paying Federal income taxes.
ReplyDeleteEveryone whining about this decision is avoiding this fact.
@12:25
ReplyDeleteThey literally can't because despite PR voting for statehood consistently, Congress has declined to grant it to them. Also, PR residents do often pay federal income taxes because there are lots of ways you can be liable for federal income taxes despite living in PR (mainland employer, mainland income, incomplete residency status, etc.). SSI doesn't require you to have paid taxes, and it's an irrelevant point. Finally, the actual Plaintiff resided in NY, was found eligible for SSI, moved to PR, told SSA about the move, and SSA did not realize it until years later. SSA considers PR outside the united states for SSI purposes meaning the Plaintiff had been overpaid.
Also NMI gets SSI and I've yet to hear even an argument why NMI should get SSI and PR not.
@12:25 Well said. Simple, and to the point.
ReplyDeleteSSI has rules just like any other program. If don’t follow the rules, you’re ineligible. If you want to change the rules, you did what he did and challenge the legality. He lost. Case closed.
ReplyDelete8:16 The "other PR program" is funded by a block grant, and therefore limited.
ReplyDeleteWhy the heck are the Northern Mariana Islands extended SSI eligibility when the rest of the territories? Riddle me that!
ReplyDeleteIt looks like ALL other territories have TANF except The Northern Mariana Islands. So that TANF program is the low income program for the other territories.
ReplyDeleteObviously is the US we have both but yin can’t get both simultaneously.