|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Apr 21, 2022 10:30:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Apr 21, 2022 14:07:32 GMT -5
What will be the effect on the Puerto Rico hearing office? Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Apr 21, 2022 14:08:53 GMT -5
What will be the effect on the Puerto Rico hearing office? Anyone know? None. Status quo maintained |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Apr 22, 2022 17:29:51 GMT -5
Intriguingly only Sotomayor dissented--Kagan, Breyer were included in the majority.
However this is limited only to SSI. I would expect there could be a different decision with Title II as it's earnings /contribution based.
The Court noted in it's introduction: " On the benefits side, residents of Puerto Rico are eligible
for Social Security and Medicare. §3121(e); 42 U. S. C.
§§410(h)–(i), 1301(a)(1)."
As to means tested programs the Court noted:" But residents of Puerto Rico are not eligible for Supplemental Security Income. Instead, the Federal Government
provides supplemental income assistance to covered residents of Puerto Rico through a different benefits program—
one that is funded in part by the Federal Government and
in part by Puerto Rico. Notes following §§1381−1385."
Of interest read Thomas' concurrence where he says he will no longer apply an equal protection reading of the 14th to Due Process cases under the 5th, instead using the Citizenship Clause:
"Justice Harlan stated in Plessy that the Fourteenth
Amendment “added greatly to the dignity and glory of
American citizenship.” Id. at 555. And the “best part of
Adopting this understanding of the Citizenship Clause necessarily
prompts additional questions. For example, beyond prohibiting racial
discrimination with respect to civil rights, what other forms of discrimination does the Citizenship Clause proscribe? Is access to government benefits a “privilege” or “immunity” of citizenship—i.e., a civil right? See,
e.g., id., at 1456 (observing that government benefits supported by general taxation might have been understood by the Reconstruction generation as a privilege of citizenship). And, most relevant to Bolling itself,
is access to public education a “privilege” or “immunity” of citizenship?
See, e.g., M. McConnell, Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions,
81 Va. L. Rev. 947, 1023–1043, 1103–1105 (1995) (discussing the historical evidence).
"Citizenship,” according to Charles Sumner, is “equality before the law.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., 384 (1872).6
The Citizenship Clause’s conferral of the “dignity and glory
of American citizenship” may well prohibit the Federal Government from denying citizens equality with respect to civil
rights. Rather than continue to invoke the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to justify Bolling, in an appropriate case, we should more carefully consider whether this
interpretation of the Citizenship Clause would yield a similar, and more supportable, result. "
|
|
