Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE LUIS VAELLO MADERO,
Defendant.
CASE
NO. 17-2133 (GAG)
OPINION AND ORDER
Article IV of the Constitution confers upon Congress
the power to enact all needful rules
and regulations for governing territories of the United States. This clause, however,
is not carte
blanche for Congress to switch
on and off at its convenience the fundamental constitutional rights
to Due Process
and Equal Protection
enjoyed by a birthright United States citizen who relocates
from a State to Puerto Rico. Congress,
likewise, cannot demean
and brand said United States
citizen while in Puerto Rico with a stigma of inferior citizenship to that of his brethren
nationwide.
To hold otherwise
would run afoul of the sacrosanct principle
embodied in the Declaration of
Independence that “All Men are Created Equal”.
Pending before the Court are defendant Jose Luis Vaello-Madero and plaintiff United
States’ motions for Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos.
57, 59). Vaello Madero contends he is not
required to return the payments
he received in Social Security Income (“SSI”) disability benefits
upon changing his domicile to Puerto Rico since
excluding a United States citizen residing in
the
territory from receiving the same runs afoul of the
equal protection guarantees of the Due Process
Clause. In turn, the United States posits that
limiting SSI eligibility to residents of the fifty states
and the District of Columbia is
constitutionally permissible. Based on the foregoing analysis, 24 1
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
Vaello-Madero’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is GRANTED and the United States’
Cross-
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of this case are undisputed and have been jointly proposed
by both parties.
(Docket No. 51 at pages 2-4).
Vaello-Madero resided in New York between 1985-2013. While there, he received SSI
disability benefits, which
were deposited into his New York bank account. In July 2013, he moved
to Puerto Rico, and continued
to receive SSI disability payments
in his New York bank account
until August 2016. Vaello-Madero was unaware that his relocation would affect his SSI disability
entitlement.
Vaello-Madero learned he was ineligible
for SSI payments in June 2016. Via two notices
that summer, the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) stopped its SSI payments, and
retroactively reduced said payments to $0 for August 2013 through August 2016. The notices
informed Vaello-Madero that the SSA could contact
him “about any payments we previously
made,” but did not inform
him that he would have to return the amount of benefits
collected while
in Puerto Rico.
On August 25, 2017, the United States
commenced the current
civil action against
Vaello-
Madero to collect
$28,081.00 in overpaid
SSI benefits received
following his relocation from
United States mainland
to territory. Surprisingly, the United States moved for voluntary dismissal
of its claims against Vaello-Madero claiming lack of
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4), on
the ground that the SSA’s administrative requirements had not been met. (Docket
No. 23). Vaello-
Madero filed an opposition to the voluntary dismissal arguing that the dismissal “raises the
prospect that the United States might be trying to
abandon its chosen forum in
response to what it
might perceive as a serious
setback.” (Docket No. 25 at 12). The Court agreed
with Vaello-Madero,
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
finding that since the United
States brought suit,
the Court had “broad jurisdictional power” to
entertain the same. (Docket No. 36
at 3). United States v. Vaello-Madero, 313 F. Supp. 3d 370 3 (D.P.R. 2018).
In support of his motion
for summary judgment,
Vaello-Madero argues that the Social
Security Act’s exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI
benefits program under section 1382c(e)
thereof violates the equal protection guarantees of the Due Process
Clause. The United States
argues, in turn,
that Congress’ determinations as to eligibility requirements for government
benefits hold a strong presumption of constitutionality. Furthermore, the United States
claims that
Congress’ authority under the Territorial Clause enables it to pass economic and social welfare
legislation for
the territories where there is a rational basis for such actions.
Oral arguments
were held on December 20, 2018 at the Luis A. Ferré Courthouse in Ponce,
Puerto Rico.
(Docket No. 88). Besides the parties, the Commonwealth, as well as the sole
representative in
Congress from Puerto Rico, Jenniffer González, as amici curiae, participated.
Because the salient facts are not in controversy, and the issue at bar rather is entirely a legal-
constitutional one, the Court shall directly proceed
to address its merits.
16
II. Analysis
Today’s ruling will not delve into the complex
constitutional issues of Puerto Rico as a
territory of the United
States for the past 120 years. Instead,
the Court’s analysis
will focus
exclusively on Vaello-Madero’s defense
regarding the constitutionality of the restitution sought
by the government.
A. Social
Security Act and Supplemental Disability Benefits
The SSI program was created to aid the Nation’s aged, blind, and disabled persons
who
qualify
due to proven economic need. 42 U.S.C. § 1382. Unlike Social Security and
Medicare, 24
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 4 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
individuals do not contribute toward the SSI
program.1 In order to be eligible for
the SSI program
an individual must reside in the “United States,” id.
at § 1382(f), which, in turn, is defined as the
50 States and the District
of Columbia. Id. at § 1382c(e).
2 Since Puerto Rico is not included in the
aforesaid definition, a United States
citizen such as Vaello-Madero is automatically excluded
from
the SSI program.
The United States
justifies this exclusion under Congress’ plenary
powers under
the Territorial Clause.
Further, it asserts
that the denial of SSI disability payments
to United States
citizens in Puerto Rico does not violate the Fifth
Amendment’s equal protection guarantee under
a deferential rational basis review standard.
B. The Territorial Clause
The Territorial Clause is not a blank check for the
federal government to dictate when and
where the Constitution applies to its citizens. “The Constitution grants
Congress and the President
the power to acquire, dispose
of, and govern
territory, not the power to decide when and where
its
terms apply.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
723, 765 (2008). “Even when the United States
acts
outside its borders,
its powers are not ‘absolute and unlimited’ but are subject
‘to such restrictions
as are expressed in the
Constitution.’” Boumediene, 533 U.S. at 765 (citing Murphy v. Ramsey, 16 114, U.S. 15, 44 (1885)).
Congress indeed possesses
a wide latitude of powers to effectively govern its territories.
However, “[a]bstaining from questions involving
formal sovereignty and territorial governance
is
one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at
will is quite another.” Boumediene, 533 at 765. This “would
permit a striking
anomaly in our
tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress
and the President, not [the 22
1 United States citizens in Puerto
Rico contribute equally to Social Security and Medicare as do United States
citizens in
the
States and District of Columbia.
2 Notwithstanding, the United States
acknowledges that Congress
made SSI program
benefits available to residents of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands by virtue of a joint resolution in 1976. See Pub. L. No. 94-241, § 502(a)(1), 90
Stat. 263, 268 (1976)
(codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note, and implemented by 20 C.F.R. § 416.120(c)(10)).
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 5 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
judicial branch], say what the law is.” Boumediene, 533 at 765 (citing Marbury
v. Madison 5 U.S.
137, 177 (1803)).
The authority to treat the territory of Puerto Rico itself unlike
the States does not
stretch as far as to permit the abrogation of fundamental constitutional protections to United
States
citizens as Congress sees fit.
The powers granted under the Constitution are not infinite.
“The power the Constitution
grants it also restrains. And though Congress
has great authority
to design laws to fit its own
conception of sound national policy,
it cannot deny the liberty
protected by the Due Process
Clause
of the Fifth Amendment.” United
States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774 (2013). Thus, the broad
power granted under the Territorial Clause does not allow Congress
to eradicate the sacrosanct
fundamental constitutional protections afforded to United
States citizens residing
in the States and
Puerto Rico.
C. Equal Protection Guarantee of the Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause assures
that the same equal protection
principles of the Fourteenth Amendment
generally constrain the federal government, even though
the Equal Protection
Clause by its terms does not. Bolling
v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954).
The United States
argues that Congress
may place restrictions on the eligibility “of persons
residing in United States territories to receive
payments under the [SSI] program administered
by
the [SSA], and that such restrictions are consistent
with equal protection principles”.
In order for the Court to be persuaded by the United States’ argument,
it would have to
sanction the proposition that Congress can disparately classify
United States citizens
residing in
Puerto Rico, running counter to the very essence and
fundamental guarantees of the Constitution
itself. “The liberty protected by the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the
prohibition against denying to any
person the equal protection of the laws.” Windsor, 570 U.S. at 24 774.
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 6 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
“The Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at
the very least mean that a bare
congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular
group cannot’ justify disparate treatment
of
that group.” Windsor, 570 U.S. at 770 (citing Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528,
534–535 (1973)). An allegation of disparate
treatment of United States citizens residing in Puerto
Rico requires that the court determine “whether
[the] law is motived by an improper
animus or
purpose.” Id. at 770. The Government’s
justification for excluding United States citizens residing
in Puerto Rico from SSI benefits rests on Congress’ authority to enact social and economic
legislation. When a statute is reviewed under a
rational basis lens, the challenger must prove
that
no plausible set of facts exists that could forge a rational
relationship between the challenged rules
and the government’s legitimate goals. Romer v.
Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1993).
In light of Windsor, the discriminatory statute
at bar fails to pass rational basis
constitutional muster. United States citizens
residing in Puerto
Rico are deprived
of receiving SSI
benefits based solely on the fact that they live in a United States territory. Classifying a group of
the Nation’s poor and medically
neediest United States citizens as “second tier” simply because
they reside in Puerto Rico is by no means rational. An overwhelming percentage of the United
States citizens residing
in Puerto Rico are of Hispanic origin
and are regarded
as such despite
their
birthright United States
citizenship.3 Persons born in Puerto Rico have been United States
citizens
since 1917. This citizenship, was originally a
statutory one.4 However, in 1940, Congress
recognized that those born in January 1941, and
thereafter, enjoyed birthright citizenship.5
United States citizens
residing in Puerto
Rico are the very essence
of a politically powerless
group, with no Presidential nor
Congressional vote, and
with only a
non-voting Resident 22
3 Likewise, United States citizens
in the other two territories that are excluded
from the SSI program, Guam and the United
States Virgin Islands, are mainly of Chamorro and afro-caribbean descent, respectively.
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 7 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
Commissioner representing their interests in
Congress. If a statute discriminates on the basis of a
suspect classification, then it is subjected to a heightened scrutiny standard and must be invalidated
unless it is “narrowly tailored
to achieve a compelling government
interest.” Parents Involved
in
Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701,
720 (2007). A de facto
classification based on Hispanic origin is constitutionally impermissible. See Rice
v. Cayetano,
528 U.S. 495, 523 (2000) (holding that Congress cannot authorize classifications based on racial
ancestry, and that “[r]ace cannot qualify some and
disqualify others from full participation in
our
democracy”).6
The Court need not explain why the SSI statutory
exclusion also fails under a heightened
scrutiny standard. It is obvious that the same is not narrowly
tailored to achieve a “compelling
government interest.” Even so, the Court need not delve into a strict versus rational basis scrutiny
analysis, as in accordance with Windsor, the denial of SSI disability benefits to United
States
citizens in Puerto Rico is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected
by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.” Parents Involved in Community Schools 551 U.S.
at 774. It is a violation of “basic due process”
principles, as it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of
a kind that denies “an essential
part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 769 17 and 768.
As in Windsor, 570 U.S. at 772, “[t]he
principal purpose [of the statute]
is to impose
inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.” The United States
justifies the
exclusion of Puerto Rico and argues
that: (1) the cost of including Puerto
Rico in the SSI program
would be too high and that (2) Puerto Rico does not pay federal income tax which funds the SSI
program.
(Docket No. 59 at 1). Aside from the fact that the cost is minimal compared to
the 23
24 6 While
Rice v. Cayetano was decided by the Supreme Court on Fifteenth Amendment
grounds, racial classifications are equally impermissible in the Equal
Protection content, i.e., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483 (1954).
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 8 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
government’s budget for such program, this is not a
valid justification for creating classifications
of United States citizens and justifying the same under the lax scrutiny of social and economic
legislation. While line drawing is necessary for
Congress to pass social and economic legislation,
it is never a valid reason for disparate treatment
of United States citizen’s fundamental rights.7
The reasons for excluding SSI benefits to United
States citizens in Puerto Rico are belied
by the fact that United States citizens
in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands
receive SSI disability benefits.8 Additionally, aliens in the States, District
of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands may qualify
for SSI benefits. In fact,
in 2017, 6%
of all SSI beneficiaries were noncitizens. SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2017,
as high as 12.1% which represented a total of
785,410 beneficiaries.” Id. This number
is
exponentially higher than that of United States citizens in Puerto Rico who would be eligible
for
SSI benefits.9
It is the Government’s role to protect
the fundamental rights of all United States citizens.
Fundamental rights are the same in the States as in the Territories, without
distinction. Equal
Protection and Due Process are fundamental rights
afforded to every United States citizen,
including those who under the United States
flag make Puerto
Rico their home. Examining Bd. of
Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976). As such, federal
legislation that creates
a citizenship apartheid based on historical and social ethnicity within United 20
7 The United States
relies on the pre Boumediene and Windsor cases of Califano v.
Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) and Harris
v.
Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
This Court, however,
cannot simply bind itself to the legal status quo of
1980, and ignore
important subsequent developments in the constitutional landscape. If
so, cases like Plessy, Baker v. Nelson and Korematsu would
still be good law.
8 Although the inclusion of United States citizens residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands came
subsequent
to the enactment of the SSI program,
this fact nonetheless evidences that Congress, in fact, has recognized the
importance of extending the program to United States
citizens in the territories.
9 The United States in its supplemental brief (Docket No. 96) notes that unlike United States citizens residing
in Puerto
Rico,
resident aliens are subject to federal income tax. This misses the point. A
significant percentage of United States citizens in
Puerto Rico -contrary
to popular belief-
must pay federal
taxes. However, when it comes to SSI, neither group
in reality contributes
to the federal treasury due to the fact that
its beneficiaries are poor and needy.
Case 3:17-cv-02133-GAG
Document 97 Filed 02/04/19 Page 9 of 9
Case No. 17-2133 (GAG)
States soil goes against this very concept. It is in
the Court’s responsibility to protect these rights
if the other branches do not. Allowing
a United States citizen in Puerto Rico that is poor and
disabled to be denied SSI disability payments
creates an impermissible second rate citizenship akin
to that premised
on race and amounts to Congress switching
off the Constitution. All United States
citizens must trust that their
fundamental constitutional rights
will be safeguarded everywhere
within the Nation, be in a State or Territory.10
7
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Vaello-Madero’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 57) and DENIES the government’s Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment
(Docket No. 59). Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
11
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 4th day of February, 2019.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10 To hold otherwise would permit constitutionally absurd and anomalous
results in Puerto Rico. For example, a statute
analogous
to the Defense of Marriage Act, held to be unconstitutional in Windsor,
could still apply in Puerto Rico if premised on
24 territorial,
socio-economic grounds. Thus, same sex spouses who move to Puerto Rico, would not be entitled
here to dependent
Social Security, veterans, or
other federal benefits and entitlements.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login