United States v. Vaello-Madero (20-303)

argument 20-303

United States v. Vaello-Madero

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 12m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in United States v. Vaello‑Madero?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty three hundred three. Vallejo Madero, uh United States versus Vallejo Madero. Mr. Gannon?

Unknown 0:12

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Congress's decision not to extend its supplemental security income program to Puerto Rico lacks a rational basis. As this court has recognized, Puerto Rico has a unique tax status vis a vis the federal government. Puerto Rico's residents and employers contribute to Federal unemployment insurance and to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and they receive benefits from those programs. But Congress has expressly exempted them from the obligations to pay many forms of Federal taxes, including Federal income tax in most instances, excise taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes, which means that much of the revenue that would have flowed into the Federal Treasury

Unknown 0:53

can instead be tapped by territorial government, which therefore has greater leeway to make different fiscal or economic choices consistent with its distinctive status as a self governing Commonwealth. Congress could reasonably take those considerations into account when deciding that Puerto Rico's residents would receive some federal benefits but not others, and this court has already recognized as much when it concluded in Torres and Rosario that there is a rational basis for Congress to exclude Puerto Rico's residents from participation in a social welfare program. Of course, it would also be rational for Congress to make changes on either side of its balance between taxes and benefits, and the President has already called on Congress to extend SSI benefits to the residents of Puerto Rico.

Unknown 1:40

But whether and how to alter the balances underlying current social welfare policies are decisions that are left to Congress and evaluated under a deferential rational basis standard that this Court should find has been satisfied here. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:55

Uh Mr Gannon, uh do you think that um the Territory Clause is enough of a s a source of authority for uh the government or Congress to have a rational basis

Unknown 2:08

to do what it's doing? We aren't resting just on the Territory Clause here, Justice Thomas. We agree that the equal protection principle in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies here and there does need to be a rational basis. The fact that the territory clause gives Congress a different and unique source of authorities over territories does mean that it is inescapably the case that Congress often legislates differently with respect to a territory.

Clarence Thomas 2:38

How much

Unknown 2:38

of your

Clarence Thomas 2:38

argument depends on that? Uh I'm trying to sort of figure out whether or not just merely uh under the territory clause you could how much could you do? Uh for example, I give you a different uh uh approach. Um Could you do the same thing to Vermont?

Unknown 3:00

I the question would still be governed by a rational basis.

Clarence Thomas 3:03

And I well I'm I guess would the test how different would the test be?

Unknown 3:08

for Vermont versus Puerto Rico. I don't think the rational basis test would be different. I think the Court would still be looking under that deferential screen into whether there is a legitimate governmental interest that is being served by drawing a different line there. And there are Federal laws that make state by state distinctions, but I do think that the territory clause means that it is natural that Congress has often legislated differently with respect to territories, and therefore there are go it is going to be um uh a more common breakpoint in legislation, but here we think that the reason is deeper because it relates to the balance of Federal benefits and burdens that apply in the territory differently than they do uh in the States.

Unknown 3:57

And so if Vermont had a different relationship with the Federal Government on the one side, then it might be easier for the Federal Government to alter it on the other side. And in this instance, it doesn't. Now Congress always takes into account, and it is always legitimate for Congress to take into account the source of Federal funding associated with a particular program.