Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–303 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. 
JOSE LUIS VAELLO MADERO 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[April 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 
The  Supplemental  Security  Income  (SSI)  program  pro-
vides a guaranteed minimum income to certain vulnerable
citizens who lack the means to support themselves.  If they
meet uniform federal eligibility criteria, recipients are enti-
tled to SSI regardless of their contributions, or their State’s
contributions, to the United States Treasury, which funds
the program.  Despite these broad eligibility criteria, today 
the  Court  holds  that  Congress’  decision  to  exclude  citizen
residents of Puerto Rico from this important safety-net pro-
gram is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s equal pro-
tection guarantee.  I disagree.  In my view, there is no ra-
tional  basis  for  Congress  to  treat  needy  citizens  living
anywhere in the United States so differently from others.
To hold otherwise, as the Court does, is irrational and anti-
thetical to the very nature of the SSI program and the equal 
protection of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution.  I re-
spectfully dissent. 

I 
Congress’ enactment of the SSI program in 1972 repre-
sented  a  major  change  in  the  Federal  Government’s  rela-
tionship with States and Territories in assisting low-income
individuals.  Prior to 1972, means-based assistance for peo-
ple over the age of 64, blind people, or those with disabilities