United States v. Vaello-Madero

![]() | |
United States v. Vaello-Madero | |
Term: 2021 | |
Important Dates | |
Argued: November 9, 2021 Decided: April 21, 2022 | |
Outcome | |
reversed | |
Vote | |
8-1 | |
Majority | |
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Amy Coney Barrett | |
Concurring | |
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch | |
Dissenting | |
Sonia Sotomayor |
United States v. Vaello-Madero is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 21, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued on November 9, 2021.
The court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that the Constitution does not require Congress to extend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Puerto Rican residents. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.
The United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for repayment of benefits Vaello-Madero received after moving from New York to Puerto Rico; Vaello-Madero countersued that the SSI statute violated his right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The district court found for Vaello-Madero, holding that Congress had no rational basis for discriminating against U.S. citizens resident in Puerto Rico in passing the SSI provisions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.[2] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- April 21, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 1st Circuit's decision in an 8-1 ruling.
- November 9, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- March 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- September 4, 2020: The United States of America appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- April 10, 2020: The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico's ruling.
Background
In 1985, José Luis Vaello-Madero, a Puerto Rican-born United States citizen, moved to New York from Puerto Rico. During his residence in New York, he experienced severe health problems and in June 2012 was deemed eligible for and began receiving payments under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provisions of the Social Security Act.[2] His SSI payments were made monthly by direct deposit into his account with a New York bank.
In 2013, Vaello-Madero moved back to Puerto Rico to care for his ill wife. He became aware of issues with his SSI payments related to his move to Puerto Rico in 2016 after filing for Title II Social Security benefits at the Social Security Administration (SSA) office in Puerto Rico. He received notice that his SSI benefits would be discontinued due to his residing outside the United States for more than 30 consecutive days.[2] The SSA made the determination based on statutory provisions that require an SSI beneficiary to be a "resident of the United States," which, "when used in a geographical sense, means the 50 States and the District of Columbia."[4] In 1976, the Northern Mariana Islands were added as a geographic location within the scope of SSI benefits pursuant to Public Law 94-241.[2]
The United States subsequently filed suit against Vaello-Madero in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico seeking repayment of $28,081 in SSI benefits that the United States alleged was improperly paid to Vaello-Madero between 2013—the time he left New York—and 2016—the time the SSA discontinued his SSI benefits. Vaello-Madero countersued claiming that "the exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from the SSI program violated the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment."[2]
The district court found for Vaello-Madero, holding that the two U.S. Supreme Court cases that the United States relied on to justify the differential treatment by Congress of Puerto Rican residents—Califano v. Gautier Torres and Harris v. Rosario—were distinct from the present case. The district court further held that when a rational basis review standard was applied to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provisions of the Social Security Act, "[T]he discriminatory statute at bar fails to pass rational basis constitutional muster. United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico are deprived of receiving SSI benefits based solely on the fact that they live in a United States territory. Classifying a group of the Nation's poor and medically neediest United States citizens as 'second tier' simply because they reside in Puerto Rico is by no means rational."[5]
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that neither of the Supreme Court's rulings in Califano v. Gautier Torres or Harris v. Rosario applied to the present case and that the SSI statute failed to pass a rational basis review.[2]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9, 2021.
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[7]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[8]
Outcome
In an 8-1 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not require Congress to extend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Puerto Rican residents. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.[1]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]
“ |
The United States includes five Territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. This case involves Puerto Rico, which became a U. S. Territory in 1898 in the wake of the Spanish-American War. |
” |
—Justice Brett Kavanaugh |
Concurring opinion
Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]
“ |
I join the opinion of the Court. I write separately to address the premise that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component whose substance is “precisely the same” as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 638, n. 2 (1975). Although I have joined the Court in applying this doctrine, see Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 213–217 (1995), I now doubt whether it comports with the original meaning of the Constitution. Firmer ground for prohibiting the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of race, at least with respect to civil rights, may well be found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. [6] |
” |
—Justice Clarence Thomas |
Justice Gorsuch
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]
“ |
A century ago in the Insular Cases, this Court held that the federal government could rule Puerto Rico and other Territories largely without regard to the Constitution. It is past time to acknowledge the gravity of this error and admit what we know to be true: The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law. |
” |
—Justice Neil Gorsuch |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
In his/her/their dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]
“ |
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides a guaranteed minimum income to certain vulnerable citizens who lack the means to support themselves. If they meet uniform federal eligibility criteria, recipients are entitled to SSI regardless of their contributions, or their State’s contributions, to the United States Treasury, which funds the program. Despite these broad eligibility criteria, today the Court holds that Congress’ decision to exclude citizen residents of Puerto Rico from this important safety-net program is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. I disagree. In my view, there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others. To hold otherwise, as the Court does, is irrational and antithetical to the very nature of the SSI program and the equal protection of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. I respectfully dissent. [6] |
” |
—Justice Sonia Sotomayor |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2021-2022
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]
The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[10] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[11]
The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - United States v. Vaello-Madero (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for United States v. Vaello-Madero
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Vaello Madero, decided April 21, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, United States v. Vaello-Madero, decided April 10, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 20-303: Questions Presented," accessed March 1, 2021
- ↑ United States Code, "42 U.S.C. § 1382c - Definitions," accessed March 1, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, United States v. Vaello-Madero, decided February 4, 2019
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 9, 2021
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 9, 2021
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
- ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021