//www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/thomas-and-gorsuch-probe-american-citizenship-race-and-the-territories/
Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch ask us to revisit old mistakes in understanding the rights of American citizenship.
The Supreme Court decided an easy case this morning — a case so easy that only Justice Sonia Sotomayor could get it wrong. Nevertheless, it still had Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the mood to raise long-standing questions about race and American citizenship.
The question in United States v. Vaello Madero was whether Congress is permitted to exclude residents of Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and other federal benefits programs — just as it exempts Puerto Ricans from most federal taxes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion easily concluded, in a brisk six-page 8–1 decision joined by every justice but Sotomayor, that long-standing law allowed Congress to treat Puerto Rico and other territories differently:
The Territory Clause of the Constitution states that Congress may “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. The text of the Clause affords Congress broad authority to legislate with respect to the U. S. Territories. Exercising that authority, Congress sometimes legislates differently with respect to the Territories, including Puerto Rico, than it does with respect to the States.
The territory clause was likewise the basis for the Court’s decision in 2020 in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, which held that the appointments clause does not require Senate approval for territorial officials exercising the sorts of local powers that, in a state, would be exercised by the state. In today’s case, Kavanaugh observed that, if Congress were constitutionally mandated to provide federal benefits in Puerto Rico, there would be political pressure to apply federal taxes there as well — “with serious implications for the Puerto Rican people and the Puerto Rican economy. The Constitution does not require that extreme outcome.”
The Dissenter
Sotomayor, a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to New York and a longtime board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote separately in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. v. Aurelius on Puerto Rico–specific grounds. In today’s decision, paying no attention to the constitutional text or the history of territorial regulation, Sotomayor argued that “there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others” because the program “establishes a direct relationship between the recipient and the Federal Government. . . . Under the current system, the jurisdiction in which an SSI recipient resides has no bearing at all on the purposes or requirements of the SSI program.