Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO 

Opinion of the Court 

Vaello  Madero  invoked  the  U. S.  Constitution.    Vaello 
Madero  argued  that  Congress’s  exclusion  of  residents  of 
Puerto  Rico  from  the  Supplemental  Security  Income  pro-
gram violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 

Vaello Madero’s constitutional argument prevailed in the
District Court and the Court of Appeals, 956 F. 3d 12 (CA1
2020), and we granted certiorari, 592 U. S. ___ (2021).  We 
respectfully disagree with those Courts.  In our view, this 
Court’s  precedents,  in  addition  to  the  constitutional  text
and historical practice discussed above, establish that Con-
gress may distinguish the Territories from the States in tax
and benefits programs such as Supplemental Security In-
come, so long as Congress has a rational basis for doing so.
In Califano v. Torres, the Court addressed whether Con-
gress’s  decision  not  to  extend  Supplemental  Security  In-
come to Puerto Rico violated the constitutional right to in-
terstate travel.  435 U. S. 1 (1978) (per curiam).  Applying
the  deferential  rational-basis  test,  the  Court  upheld  Con-
gress’s  decision.    The  Court  explained  that  Congress  had 
exempted residents of Puerto Rico from federal taxes.  And 
the Court concluded that Congress could likewise treat res-
idents of Puerto Rico differently from residents of the States
in  the  Supplemental  Security  Income  benefits  program. 
Id., at 3–5, and n. 7. 

A few years later, in Harris v. Rosario, the Court again
ruled that Congress’s differential treatment of Puerto Rico
in a federal benefits program did not violate the Constitu-
tion—this time, the equal-protection component of the Fifth 
Amendment’s  Due  Process  Clause.  446  U. S.  651  (1980) 
(per curiam).  The  Court  stated  that  the  Territory  Clause 
permits  Congress  to  “treat  Puerto  Rico  differently  from
States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions.” 
Id.,  at  651−652.  Citing  the  prior  decision  in  Torres,  the 
Court  noted  that  Congress’s  tax  laws  treated  residents  of 
Puerto  Rico  differently  from  residents  of  the States.    And