Posted on 02/04/2019 10:01:57 AM PST by cll
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO CASE NO. 17-2133 (GAG)
OPINION AND ORDER
Article IV of the Constitution confers upon Congress the power to enact all needful rules and regulations for governing territories of the United States. This clause, however, is not carte blanche for Congress to switch on and off at its convenience the fundamental constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection enjoyed by a birthright United States citizen who relocates from a State to Puerto Rico. Congress, likewise, cannot demean and brand said United States citizen while in Puerto Rico with a stigma of inferior citizenship to that of his brethren nationwide. To hold otherwise would run afoul of the sacrosanct principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence that All Men are Created Equal.
Pending before the Court are defendant Jose Luis Vaello-Madero and plaintiff United States motions for Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos. 57, 59). Vaello Madero contends he is not required to return the payments he received in Social Security Income (SSI) disability benefits upon changing his domicile to Puerto Rico since excluding a United States citizen residing in the territory from receiving the same runs afoul of the equal protection guarantees of the Due Process Clause. In turn, the United States posits that limiting SSI eligibility to residents of the fifty states and the District of Columbia is constitutionally permissible. Based on the foregoing analysis, Vaello-Maderos Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the United States CrossMotion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are undisputed and have been jointly proposed by both parties. (Docket No. 51 at pages 2-4). Vaello-Madero resided in New York between 1985-2013. While there, he received SSI disability benefits, which were deposited into his New York bank account. In July 2013, he moved to Puerto Rico, and continued to receive SSI disability payments in his New York bank account until August 2016. Vaello-Madero was unaware that his relocation would affect his SSI disability entitlement.
Vaello-Madero learned he was ineligible for SSI payments in June 2016. Via two notices that summer, the Social Security Administration (SSA) stopped its SSI payments, and retroactively reduced said payments to $0 for August 2013 through August 2016. The notices informed Vaello-Madero that the SSA could contact him about any payments we previously made, but did not inform him that he would have to return the amount of benefits collected while in Puerto Rico.
On August 25, 2017, the United States commenced the current civil action against VaelloMadero to collect $28,081.00 in overpaid SSI benefits received following his relocation from United States mainland to territory. Surprisingly, the United States moved for voluntary dismissal of its claims against Vaello-Madero claiming lack of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4), on the ground that the SSAs administrative requirements had not been met. (Docket No. 23). VaelloMadero filed an opposition to the voluntary dismissal arguing that the dismissal raises the prospect that the United States might be trying to abandon its chosen forum in response to what it might perceive as a serious setback. (Docket No. 25 at 12). The Court agreed with Vaello-Madero, finding that since the United States brought suit, the Court had broad jurisdictional power to entertain the same. (Docket No. 36 at 3). United States v. Vaello-Madero, 313 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.P.R. 2018).
In support of his motion for summary judgment, Vaello-Madero argues that the Social Security Acts exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI benefits program under section 1382c(e) thereof violates the equal protection guarantees of the Due Process Clause. The United States argues, in turn, that Congress determinations as to eligibility requirements for government benefits hold a strong presumption of constitutionality. Furthermore, the United States claims that Congress authority under the Territorial Clause enables it to pass economic and social welfare legislation for the territories where there is a rational basis for such actions.
Oral arguments were held on December 20, 2018 at the Luis A. Ferré Courthouse in Ponce, Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 88). Besides the parties, the Commonwealth, as well as the sole representative in Congress from Puerto Rico, Jenniffer González, as amici curiae, participated. Because the salient facts are not in controversy, and the issue at bar rather is entirely a legalconstitutional one, the Court shall directly proceed to address its merits.
II. Analysis
Todays ruling will not delve into the complex constitutional issues of Puerto Rico as a territory of the United States for the past 120 years. Instead, the Courts analysis will focus exclusively on Vaello-Maderos defense regarding the constitutionality of the restitution sought by the government.
A. Social Security Act and Supplemental Disability Benefits
The SSI program was created to aid the Nations aged, blind, and disabled persons who qualify due to proven economic need. 42 U.S.C. § 1382. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, individuals do not contribute toward the SSI program.1 In order to be eligible for the SSI program an individual must reside in the United States, id. at § 1382(f), which, in turn, is defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Id. at § 1382c(e). 2 Since Puerto Rico is not included in the aforesaid definition, a United States citizen such as Vaello-Madero is automatically excluded from the SSI program. The United States justifies this exclusion under Congress plenary powers under the Territorial Clause. Further, it asserts that the denial of SSI disability payments to United States citizens in Puerto Rico does not violate the Fifth Amendments equal protection guarantee under a deferential rational basis review standard.
B. The Territorial Clause
The Territorial Clause is not a blank check for the federal government to dictate when and where the Constitution applies to its citizens. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008). Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not absolute and unlimited but are subject to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution. Boumediene, 533 U.S. at 765 (citing Murphy v. Ramsey, 114, U.S. 15, 44 (1885)).
Congress indeed possesses a wide latitude of powers to effectively govern its territories. However, [a]bstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. Boumediene, 533 at 765. This would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not [the judicial branch], say what the law is. Boumediene, 533 at 765 (citing Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)). The authority to treat the territory of Puerto Rico itself unlike the States does not stretch as far as to permit the abrogation of fundamental constitutional protections to United States citizens as Congress sees fit.
The powers granted under the Constitution are not infinite. The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774 (2013). Thus, the broad power granted under the Territorial Clause does not allow Congress to eradicate the sacrosanct fundamental constitutional protections afforded to United States citizens residing in the States and Puerto Rico.
C. Equal Protection Guarantee of the Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause assures that the same equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment generally constrain the federal government, even though the Equal Protection Clause by its terms does not. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954). The United States argues that Congress may place restrictions on the eligibility of persons residing in United States territories to receive payments under the [SSI] program administered by the [SSA], and that such restrictions are consistent with equal protection principles. In order for the Court to be persuaded by the United States argument, it would have to sanction the proposition that Congress can disparately classify United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico, running counter to the very essence and fundamental guarantees of the Constitution itself. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. Windsor, 570 U.S. at 774. The Constitutions guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group. Windsor, 570 U.S. at 770 (citing Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534535 (1973)). An allegation of disparate treatment of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico requires that the court determine whether [the] law is motived by an improper animus or purpose. Id. at 770. The Governments justification for excluding United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from SSI benefits rests on Congress authority to enact social and economic legislation. When a statute is reviewed under a rational basis lens, the challenger must prove that no plausible set of facts exists that could forge a rational relationship between the challenged rules and the governments legitimate goals. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1993).
In light of Windsor, the 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 Nations poor and medically neediest United States citizens as second tier simply because they reside in Puerto Rico is by no means rational. An overwhelming percentage of the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico are of Hispanic origin and are regarded as such despite their birthright United States citizenship.3
Persons born in Puerto Rico have been United States citizens since 1917. This citizenship, was originally a statutory one.4 However, in 1940, Congress recognized that those born in January 1941, and thereafter, enjoyed birthright citizenship.5
United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico are the very essence of a politically powerless group, with no Presidential nor Congressional vote, and with only a non-voting Resident Commissioner representing their interests in Congress. If a statute discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification, then it is subjected to a heightened scrutiny standard and must be invalidated unless it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 720 (2007). A de facto classification based on Hispanic origin is constitutionally impermissible. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 523 (2000) (holding that Congress cannot authorize classifications based on racial ancestry, and that [r]ace cannot qualify some and disqualify others from full participation in our democracy).6
The Court need not explain why the SSI statutory exclusion also fails under a heightened scrutiny standard. It is obvious that the same is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Even so, the Court need not delve into a strict versus rational basis scrutiny analysis, as in accordance with Windsor, the denial of SSI disability benefits to United States citizens in Puerto Rico is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Parents Involved in Community Schools 551 U.S. at 774. It is a violation of basic due process principles, as it inflicts an injury and indignity of a kind that denies an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 769 and 768.
As in Windsor, 570 U.S. at 772, [t]he principal purpose [of the statute] is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. The United States justifies the exclusion of Puerto Rico and argues that: (1) the cost of including Puerto Rico in the SSI program would be too high and that (2) Puerto Rico does not pay federal income tax which funds the SSI program. (Docket No. 59 at 1). Aside from the fact that the cost is minimal compared to the governments budget for such program, this is not a valid justification for creating classifications of United States citizens and justifying the same under the lax scrutiny of social and economic legislation. While line drawing is necessary for Congress to pass social and economic legislation, it is never a valid reason for disparate treatment of United States citizens fundamental rights.7
The reasons for excluding SSI benefits to United States citizens in Puerto Rico are belied by the fact that United States citizens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands receive SSI disability benefits.8 Additionally, aliens in the States, District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands may qualify for SSI benefits. In fact, in 2017, 6% of all SSI beneficiaries were noncitizens. SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2017, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2017/sect05.pdf. In 1995, this percentage was as high as 12.1% which represented a total of 785,410 beneficiaries. Id. This number is exponentially higher than that of United States citizens in Puerto Rico who would be eligible for SSI benefits.9
It is the Governments role to protect the fundamental rights of all United States citizens.
Fundamental rights are the same in the States as in the Territories, without distinction. Equal Protection and Due Process are fundamental rights afforded to every United States citizen, including those who under the United States flag make Puerto Rico their home. Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976). As such, federal legislation that creates a citizenship apartheid based on historical and social ethnicity within United States soil goes against this very concept. It is in the Courts responsibility to protect these rights if the other branches do not. Allowing a United States citizen in Puerto Rico that is poor and disabled to be denied SSI disability payments creates an impermissible second rate citizenship akin to that premised on race and amounts to Congress switching off the Constitution. All United States citizens must trust that their fundamental constitutional rights will be safeguarded everywhere within the Nation, be in a State or Territory.10
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Vaello-Maderos Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 57) and DENIES the governments Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 59). Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 4th day of February, 2019.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí GUSTAVO A. GELPI United States District Judge
Bush appointment. Born in Porto Rico.
******************************
One on many remaining judicial appointees remaining to poison/destroy our nation during their remaining lifetime appointments.
Stay out da Bushes.
Trump should declare Puerto Rico “Independant” be executive order (like Obama did with DACA), and then watch the politicians scramble to try and grab it back!
The only thing a “territory” is good for is planting military bases...that’s it.
Surprisingly, I’m not in complete disagreement with you. Residents of these territories ARE US citizens who should have the same rights as the rest of us. I don’t feel that we can create a separate but equal class of citizens for our territories.
Having said that, it is high time that Congress and the territories decide what they want to do. Each territory should be given two distinct choices - independence or statehood. No more screwing around with this issue either in DC or at the territorial level.
Disclaimer: I am not Hispanic nor have family members who are Hispanic or Puerto Rican.
The territories should be stripped of their territorial status but the U.S. should organize them as sovereign under a U.S. commonwealth of nations, to maintain our security ties and presence as well as our economic ties. Free trade should continue as if they were U.S. states and valid passport holders from them should not require a visa. Citizens of the commonwealth should also be able to join the u.s. military & with that gain a “green card” on a path to U.S. citizenship; if they so desire.
DISTRICT court. When are they going to learn they don’t make law for the United States?
A major naval base at Guam. Aside from that not much.
That's a point I've made too. Puerto Rico has had multiple votes on Statehood.
Why don't we, in the USA, have a vote on Statehood for Puerto Rico? (I know, we are Representative Democracy, not direct democracy). But, in the case of PR these were 'advisory referendums'.
It would be amusing to have even a couple States hold advisory referendums on "Should Statehood be Extended to Puerto Rico".
The Philippines and Puerto Rico both because American possessions following the USA's victory over Spain in the Spanish American war.
Time to complete the decolonization process of P.R. and the Virgin Islands.
If you draw SSI and move, you have to report that change to SSA within 10 days of the move (or many other changes in ones status). Failure to do so can result in loss of benefit. That's the rule for white folk anyway.
I'm not saying this wasn't reported just that that was the time for SSA to object not some years later. If it was reported, they knew damn well where their 'client' resided. A cursory look at the bank acct associated with the deposits would have shown the money being drawn/spent in P.R. (I object to this access they have but they can do it)
A major naval base at Guam. Aside from that not much.
*************************************
In 2009 it was designated Joint Region Marianas, when the Navy Base and Anderson Air Force Base were combined under Navy control. ....Very strategic location in the Pacific.
Why are the people of Washington, DC taxed (actually sending in a lot more than they get back) but cannot vote for voting Representative or Senators, same as PR.
PR has enough population for several Representatives. Washington, DC has more population than Vermont and Wyoming. These other entities are much smaller.
Only Puerto Rico and Washington, DC have population anywhere close to what is needed for ONE Congressman in the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.