Document: 446 U.S. 651 100 S.Ct. 1929 64 L.Ed.2d 587 Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Servicesv.Awilda Santiago ROSARIO et al. No. 79-1294. May 27, 1980. Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, See 448 912, 101 27. PER CURIAM. 1 The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 601 seq., provides federal financial assistance States Territories aid families needy dependent children. Puerto Rico receives less than do the States, §§ 1308(a)(1), 1396d(b) (1976 ed. Supp. II). Appellees, AFDC recipients residing in Rico, filed this class action against Health, Education, Welfare (now Services) March 1977 United District Court for Rico; they challenged constitutionality 1308 1396d(b), claiming successfully that lower level reimbursement provided violates Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. 2 We disagree. Congress, which is empowered under Territory Clause Constitution, U.S.Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "make all needful Rules Regulations respecting . belonging States," may treat differently from so long there a rational basis its actions. In Califano v. Torres, 435 1, 98 906, 55 65 (1978) (per curiam ), we concluded similar statutory classification was rationally grounded on three factors: Rican residents not contribute treasury; cost treating State statute would be high; greater benefits could disrupt economy. These same considerations are forwarded here support Juris. Statement 12-14,* see no reason depart our conclusion Torres suffice form classification. 3 reverse. 4 So ordered. 5 Mr. Justice BRENNAN BLACKMUN, now being persuaded Court's summary disposition (1978), clearly controls case, note probable jurisdiction set case oral argument. 6 MARSHALL, dissenting. 7 today rushes resolve important legal issues without full briefing or sole authority cited majority's result another decision by Court. need such haste unclear. dangers decisionmaking clear, however, analysis is, my view, ill-conceived at least two respects. 8 first question merits plenary attention whether acting pursuant "may actions." Ante, 651-652. No proposition. Our prior decisions broad statement. 9 It remember outset Ricans citizens, 1402, different treatment well affect paid these citizens.1 While some early opinions suggested various protections Constitution apply see, e. g. Downes Bidwell, 182 244, 21 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901); Balzac Porto 258 298, 343, 66 627 (1922), present validity those questionable. 442 465, 475-476, 99 2425, 2431-2432, 61 (1979) (BRENNAN, J., concurring judgment). have already held subject Due Process either Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 663, 668-669, n. 5, 94 2080, 2084, 40 452 (1974), guarantee Examining Board Flores de Otero, 426 572, 599-601, 96 2264, 2279-2280, (1976). Fourth Amendment also fully applicable directly operation supra, 471, 2429. At four Members view provisions Bill Rights Rico. U.S., S.Ct., 2431-2432 joined STEWART, JJ., 10 Despite precedents, suggests today, benefit argument, Congress needs only beneficial citizens there, States. Heightened scrutiny component concludes, simply unavailable protect who reside discriminatory legislation, acts Clause. Such proposition surely warrants before it made part constitutional jurisprudence. 11 upon majority relies, does stand espouses today. decision, reached through procedures over objections Court, id., 908 (statement BRENNAN, J.; statement J.), right travel violated provision Social Security Act persons lost their supplemental security income moving plaintiffs had grounds, relied entirely travel,2 therefore Court.3 merely referred claim briefly footnote, 4, 907, 4. Observing Rico's relationship unique, noted "apparently acknowledged has power differently, every extended it." Ibid.4 That an unparalleled lead ineluctably principle asserted here. most, reading, more into single footnote dictum deserves, suggest treated if discrimination when enacts law providing governmental payments monetary benefits. 908. limited but even position should after argument briefing. Ibid. J.). 12 I object reliance effect 652. 7, 908, 7. This rationale troubling overtones. programs designed help poor applied areas where greatest, because otherwise relative poverty compared other geographic area will somehow upset. Similarly, fear disrupting economy implies intended preserve strengthen comparative economic vis-a-vis Under theory, units country strongest economies presumably get most Federal Government since likely "disrupted." approach suggests, citation any suggestion legislative history concerns mind passed portion presently challenged. Nor appellant refer evidence record supporting notion speculative disruption warranted.5 means clear issue survive deferential standard. 13 Ultimately raises serious Constitution. An magnitude deserves far careful received case. Accordingly, dissent disposition. * For example, estimates additional purposes alone approximately $30 million per year, and, below were equally Act, total annual exceed $240 million. 12, 13. certified plaintiff "all Commonwealth [sic ] public category been, discriminated [against] solely residence." App. 2a. unclear there. distinction lack substance event. must operate one way another, increased "[w]e concerned alleged establish disparate towards Rather, focus directed determining citizen been improperly penalized while he within relevant framing although Plaintiff his physically prohibitions permitted came play very moment exerted force Plaintiff. From standpoint, remained Connecticut brought declaratory judgment suit ." Mathews, F.Supp. 1106, 1110 (1977) (emphasis deleted). presented sections excluding Supplemental Income "deny due process individuals lose entitled States." Statement, O.T.1977, 77-88, p. 2. 9-11. accuracy assessment opinion open question. supra. Appellant's reimbursements might go members instead used provide services taxes, 10, demonstrates nature disruption.

Category: 1