Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 39

6 

UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

vanc[e]  a  reasonable  and  identifiable  governmental  objec-
tive.”  Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U. S. 221, 235 (1981).  When 
the relationship between a statutory classification and its 
goal is “so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary 
or  irrational,”  that  distinction  violates  equal  protection. 
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U. S. 1, 11 (1992). 

Congress’  decision  to  exclude  millions  of  U. S.  citizens 
who reside in Puerto Rico from the SSI program fails even
this deferential test.4 

A 
The United States contends, and the Court accepts, that
Puerto Rico’s “tax status” provides a rational basis for ex-
cluding citizens who reside in Puerto Rico from the SSI pro-
gram.  See  ante,  at  5  (emphasis  deleted).  As  the  United 
States  argues,  “Congress  could  rationally  conclude  that  a
jurisdiction that makes a reduced contribution to the fed-
eral treasury should receive a reduced share of the benefits 
funded by that treasury.”  Brief for United States 17–18. 

The  Court  holds  that  our  prior  decisions  in  Califano  v. 
Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) (per curiam), and Harris v. Ro-
sario, 446 U. S. 651 (1980) (per curiam), require acceptance
of this rationale.  Ante, at 4–5.  It is true that both Califano 
and Harris relied on Puerto Rico’s tax status to justify the 
unequal treatment of its residents.  See Califano, 435 U. S., 
—————— 

4 Because I would hold that this classification does not survive rational 
basis, I do not consider whether the differential treatment of citizens who 
reside in Puerto Rico requires a heightened standard of review, as the 
District  Court  held.    See  356  F. Supp.  3d  208,  214–215  (PR  2019).    In 
addition, because the Government disclaims any reliance on the Insular
Cases, Tr. of Oral Arg. 8–9, I do not address those cases in my analysis.
I do agree, however, with JUSTICE GORSUCH’s view that it “is past time to 
acknowledge  the  gravity”  of the  error  of  the  Insular  Cases.  Ante,  at  1 
(concurring opinion).  Those cases were premised on beliefs both odious
and wrong, and I share the concurrence’s “hope [that] the Court will soon
recognize that the Constitution’s application should never depend on the
government’s  concession  or  the  misguided  framework  of  the  Insular 
Cases.”  Ante, at 9.