Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Green  Book:  Background  Material  and  Data  on  the  Pro-
grams Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, App. A (24th ed. 2018).

But just as not every federal tax extends to residents of 
Puerto Rico, so too not every federal benefits program ex-
tends to residents of Puerto Rico.  One example is the Sup-
plemental  Security  Income  program,  which  Congress 
passed  and  President  Nixon  signed  into  law  in  1972.    86 
Stat.  1465.  The  Supplemental  Security  Income  program
provides benefits for, among others, those who are age 65
or older and cannot financially support themselves.

To be eligible for Supplemental Security Income, an indi-
vidual must be a “resident of the United States,” 42 U. S. C. 
§1382c(a)(1)(B)(i),  which  the  statute  defines  as  the  50
States and the District of Columbia, §1382c(e).  A later stat-
ute included residents of the Northern Mariana Islands in 
the program.  Note following 48 U. S. C. §1801; 90 Stat. 268. 
But  residents  of  Puerto  Rico  are  not  eligible  for  Supple-
mental Security Income.  Instead, the Federal Government 
provides  supplemental  income  assistance  to  covered  resi-
dents of Puerto Rico through a different benefits program—
one that is funded in part by the Federal Government and 
in part by Puerto Rico.  Notes following §§1381−1385. 

The  dispute  in  this  case  concerns  a  claim  for  Supple-
mental  Security  Income  benefits  by  a  resident  of  Puerto
Rico  named  Jose  Luis  Vaello  Madero.    In  2013,  Vaello 
Madero  moved  from  New  York  to  Puerto  Rico.    While  he 
lived  in  New  York,  Vaello  Madero  received  Supplemental
Security  Income  benefits.  After  moving  to  Puerto  Rico, 
Vaello Madero no longer was eligible for Supplemental Se-
curity Income benefits.  Yet for several years, the U. S. Gov-
ernment  remained  unaware  of  Vaello  Madero’s  new  resi-
dence and continued to pay him benefits.  The overpayment 
totaled more than $28,000. 

Seeking to recover those errant payments, the U. S. Gov-
ernment sued Vaello Madero for restitution.  In response,