Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

at 5, n. 7; Harris, 446 U. S., at 652.  Neither case, however, 
stood  for  the  principle  that  Puerto  Rico’s  tax  status  could 
justify any and all unequal treatment of its residents, and 
neither  addressed  the  claims  at  issue  here.  Califano  re-
solved  a  claim  under  the  right  to  travel,  while  Harris  de-
cided a challenge to the unequal distribution of block grants
to the States and Puerto Rico under a separate benefits pro-
gram.  Those cases do not preclude an equal protection chal-
lenge to a uniform, federalized, direct-to-individual poverty 
reduction program like SSI.  Moreover, as summary dispo-
sitions, Califano and Harris are not “of the same preceden-
tial value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the 
question on the merits.”  Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 
671  (1974).  And  both  Califano  and  Harris  rested  on  the 
mistaken premise that residents of Puerto Rico do not con-
tribute at all to the Federal Treasury.  Califano, 435 U. S., 
at 5, n. 7; Harris, 446 U. S., at 652.  Here, the United States 
concedes that “residents of Puerto Rico make some contri-
butions to the federal treasury.”  Brief for United States 19 
(emphasis deleted).

Moreover,  the  Court  overlooks  the  fact  that  SSI  estab-
lishes  a  direct  relationship  between  the  recipient  and  the 
Federal  Government.  The  Federal  Government  develops 
uniform  eligibility  criteria,  recipients  apply  for  assistance
directly to the Federal Government, and the Federal Gov-
ernment  disperses  funds  directly  and  uniformly  to  recipi-
ents without regard to where they reside.  Indeed, when it 
created SSI, Congress replaced existing programs that dif-
fered between States as well as between States and Terri-
tories and that involved States and Territories in adminis-
tering  the  programs.    Under  the  current  system,  the 
jurisdiction in which an SSI recipient resides has no bear-
ing at all on the purposes or requirements of the SSI pro-
gram.  For this reason alone, it is irrational to tie an indi-
vidual’s  entitlement  to  SSI  to  that  individual’s  place  of
residency.