Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

F. 3d 12 (CA1 2020).  The court agreed that rational-basis 
review  applied  to  Vaello  Madero’s  equal  protection  claim. 
It found no rational basis to exclude “individuals who meet 
all the eligibility criteria for SSI except for their residency 
in Puerto Rico.”  Id., at 18.  The court rejected the United
States’  argument  that  the  tax  status  of  Puerto  Rico  pro-
vided a rational basis for the challenged classification, ex-
plaining that SSI recipients are, by definition, low-income
individuals who cannot afford to pay taxes.  Id., at 27.  The 
Court of Appeals also observed that SSI is a “national pro-
gram” that is operated and administered uniformly, with-
out regard to State of residence.  Id., at 25.  The court there-
fore declared invalid the “exclusion of Puerto Rico residents 
from SSI coverage.”  Id., at 32. 

The United States petitioned this Court for a writ of cer-

tiorari, which we granted.  592 U. S. ___ (2021). 

III 
In general, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees that 
the Government will treat similarly situated individuals in 
a similar manner.  Equal protection does not foreclose the 
Government’s ability to classify persons or draw lines when 
creating and applying laws, but it does guarantee that the 
Government cannot base those classifications upon imper-
missible criteria or use them arbitrarily to burden a partic-
ular  group  of  individuals.    Where  a  law  treats  differently 
two  different  groups  of  people  that  are  not  members  of  a 
suspect  or  quasi-suspect  classification,  and  the  classifica-
tion  does  not  implicate  a  fundamental  right,  the  law  will 
survive an equal protection challenge if it is “rationally re-
lated to a legitimate governmental interest.”  Department 
of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 533 (1973).

Rational-basis review is a deferential standard, but it is 
not  “toothless.”  Mathews  v.  Lucas,  427  U. S.  495,  510 
(1976).  Even  neutral  classifications  must  “rationally  ad-