United States v. Vaello Madero: Challenging the Insular Cases (2022)

United States v. Vaello Madero (2022) involved José Luis Vaello Madero, a Puerto Rican man who had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits while living in New York. When he moved back to Puerto Rico, his SSI benefits were terminated because the program does not extend to residents of Puerto Rico — even though they are U.S. citizens.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Vaello Madero's favor, finding that the exclusion violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding 8-1 that Congress has the authority to treat Puerto Rico differently from the states in distributing benefits.

Justice Gorsuch's Concurrence: Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a remarkable concurrence calling the Insular Cases "a shameful and discredited chapter" of Supreme Court history, comparing them to Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States. He stated: "The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law."

Justice Sotomayor's Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first justice of Puerto Rican descent, issued a powerful dissent calling the decision a perpetuation of colonial inequality. She wrote: "Congress's decision to deny to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico a social safety net that it provides to almost all other U.S. citizens is especially cruel given those citizens' disproportionate vulnerability to poverty."

The case demonstrated that even after 120+ years, the racist framework of the Insular Cases remains the operative law governing Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States — and that there is growing judicial recognition that this framework is constitutionally indefensible.