Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 37

4 

UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

II 
Jose Luis Vaello Madero is a U. S. citizen who was born 
in Puerto Rico in 1954.  In 1985, he moved to New York, and 
in 2012, while still living in New York, he began receiving 
SSI  after  suffering  from  a  serious  illness.    Approximately 
one year later, Vaello Madero moved back to Puerto Rico.
Vaello Madero continued to receive monthly SSI payments
of  between  $733  and  $808  via  direct  deposit  after  he  re-
turned to Puerto Rico. 

In June 2016, Vaello Madero, approaching his 62d birth-
day,  went  to  a  Social  Security  Administration  office  in 
Puerto Rico to apply for Title II Social Security benefits.  As 
a  result,  the  Social  Security  Administration  learned  that 
Vaello Madero had moved from New York to Puerto Rico, 
and within two months, the Administration reduced his SSI 
benefits  to  $0,  retroactively  effective  to  August  2013.    By
letter,  the  Administration  notified  Vaello  Madero  that  he 
was  “outside  of  the  United  States”  while  he  was  living  in
Puerto Rico.  App. 39, 45.

In  2017,  the  United  States  filed  suit  against  Vaello 
Madero to recover the $28,081 (plus interest, costs, and at-
torney’s fees) that it calculated Vaello Madero had illegally 
cashed while he resided in Puerto Rico.  As an affirmative 
defense to the suit, Vaello Madero claimed that excluding
U. S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico from the SSI pro-
gram  violated  the  equal  protection  guarantee  of  the  Fifth 
Amendment.3  The United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Puerto Rico agreed, granting summary judgment to
Vaello Madero. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  unanimously  affirmed.  See  956 

—————— 

3 The  Fifth  Amendment’s  Due  Process  Clause  prohibits  the  Govern-
ment from denying a person the equal protection of laws.  See Bolling v. 
Sharpe,  347  U. S.  497,  499  (1954).    “ ‘Equal  protection  analysis  in  the 
Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.’ ”  Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 224 (1995) 
(quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 93 (1976) (per curiam)).