Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

In U.S. v. Vaello Madero (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s denial of Social Security benefits— including retirement, disability and Medicare—to residents of U.S. territories by applying the rational basis test [1]. A rational basis test is a standard of review used by courts to determine whether a constitutional law is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Under this test, a government policy is deemed constitutional as long as the government can provide any reasonable and legitimate justification for it [2]. For example, the government might argue that differences in tax contributions justify limiting certain benefits, even though territorial residents pay other forms of federal taxes. This ruling allowed the United States government to exclude territorial residents from programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicare despite being a U.S. territory. The real world effects of this decision are profound. The law allows the government to arbitrarily exclude 3.5 million of vulnerable Americans in the U.S. territories from social protection based solely on where they live, not based on any legitimate factor, but because of where they live [1]. This sidesteps the crucial historical context of racial and colonial discrimination against territorial residents. 

Jose Luise Vaello moved to New York in 1985 but began experiencing health problems in 2012, prompting him to receive SSI payments. In 2013, he relocated back to Puerto Rico, and three years later, the Social Security Administration sued him to recover $28,000 in benefits he had received between 2013-2016. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that SSI benefits do not extend to residents of Puerto Rico. Exclusions from the protective framework of the welfare state perpetuate cycles of generational poverty, deepen social inequality, and produce numerous harmful lived consequences [1]. Those excluded from receiving Supplemental Security Income, for example, lose out on crucial financial support for basic living expenses such as food, housing, and healthcare. This framework also denies Social Security Disability Insurance, which provides a reliable source of income for those who are disabled and unable to work. By denying these vital social services to American citizens, federal law perpetuates cycles of generational poverty and simultaneously deepens the social inequities within them [3]. The lived consequences of such exclusions include negative health outcomes, diminished quality of life, and chronic economic hardships, including those resulting from environmental exposures, lack of healthcare and substandard employment conditions. In Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—areas that are already suffering from political subordination and a lack of federal representation—such inequalities are even harder to overcome [2].

The Court’s decision to apply the rational basis test in Vaello allows them to dilute equal protection rights and invites arbitrary decisions on whether the Constitution covers all U.S. citizens. This precedent sidesteps the crucial historical context of racial and colonial discrimination against territorial residents. This discriminatory treatment has roots in the infamous Insular Cases, a series of decisions at the turn of the 20th century in which The U.S. Supreme Court distinguished between what it declared to be “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories. Incorporated territories were those that would eventually enter the Union on equal footing, and that already enjoyed full citizenship rights [2]. Citizens of unincorporated territories, however, were excluded from the application of certain parts of the constitution, were only eligible for second-class citizenship, and would be permanently left in a colonial limbo. This ‘incorporation’ doctrine ultimately authorized systemic racial discrimination and the perpetual colonial status of the US territories.

Despite widespread acknowledgment of the racist underpinnings of the Insular Cases, courts continue to rely on them to deny equal protection to territorial residents. Vaello’s precedent cemented the foundation of geography-based, second-class treatment established on the morally bankrupt colonial and racist principles that dominated territorial governance a century ago [1]. Rejecting this territorial exceptionalism is not just a matter of legal correction—it is a moral imperative to end the discriminatory systems that persist today. 

Challenging Vaello is essential for dismantling the second-class citizenship imposed on U.S. territorial residents and confronting the racist legal precedents that have long shaped their exclusion. Acknowledging the full acceptance of territorial residents as US citizens with access to all federal benefits would greatly improve disaster relief, economic stability and quality of life in all of the regions. Affirmation of the rights of all Americans to the equal protection of the law, whether in the US or its outlying territories, would be a significant step towards equity in a country that has never been equal. 

References

[1] Martínez, K. (2022). Trouble in Paradise: Puerto Rico’s Routine Exclusion from Federal Benefit Programs as a Result of the Alien-Citizen Paradox (2nd ed., Vol. 6). The Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review.

[2] Santana, W. (2023). The New Insular Cases (4th ed., Vol. 29). William and Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=wmjowl#.

[3] Ponsa, C. D. (2022, June 8). The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories. The Yale Law Journal. Retrieved November 18, 2024, from https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-insular-cases-run-amok.