When it comes to public benefit programs subjected to equal protection challenge the Supreme Court turns to rational basis - instead of strict - scrutiny. The net result? See Sotomayor, dissenting. - GWC
20-303 United States v. Vaello Madero (04/21/2022)JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides a guaranteed minimum income to certain vulnerable
citizens who lack the means to support themselves. If they
meet uniform federal eligibility criteria, recipients are entitled 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 program is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. I disagree. In my view, there is no rational 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 antithetical to the very nature of the SSI program and the equal
protection of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. I respectfully dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment