Event 14 Oct. 2022
Curtis Provides Capacity Training to the Government of Uganda
more
Event 21 Sep. 2022
Kalidou Gadio Speaks at AIEN 2022 International Energy Summit
News 15 May. 2023
Curtis represents e-commerce retailer in its fight to recover monies withheld by PayPal, the global payment giant
News 16 Dec. 2022
Curtis Trade Team is top ranked in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2023
Event 08 May. 2023
Partner Irene Petrelli to Participate in ICC YAAF Event
News 02 May. 2023
Curtis Italy with DeA Capital in the Acquisition of Magic S.r.l
Event 23 May. 2023
Partners Luciana Ricart and Fernando Tupa Will Teach a Workshop on Hearings in Investment Arbitration for Arbanza School of Arbitration’s Online Program
Publications 23 Feb. 2023
Fernando Tupa Publishes Book on Forum-Specific Consent to International Arbitration in Investment Agreements
Event 03 May. 2023
Dr. Borzu Sabahi to Speak at ICSID-ADGM Joint Conference: Investment Protection and Armed Conflict
News 27 Sep. 2022
Curtis Boosts Riyadh Office with New Corporate Partner Stuart Davies
News 25 May. 2023
Curtis Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief for Distinguished Law Professors in First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Case
News 06 Mar. 2023
Russia Sanctions at the First Anniversary: An Overview of Current Sanctions in the US, UK, and EU and How Global Companies Can Navigate Evolving and Conflicting Sanctions Regimes
Client Alert 30 Aug. 2022
The EU Adopts the “Maintenance and Alignment” Sanctions Package
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
News 21 Apr. 2022
New York, April 21, 2022 - Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Vaello-Madero, in which the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the exclusion of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and held that the exclusion does not violate equal protection. The decision adversely affects the rights of the residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.
“Today, colonialism survived through an atextual interpretation of the Territory Clause. It is unfortunate the Court failed to see the discrimination faced by the most needy Puerto Rican Americans whose only distinguishing feature is that they choose to remain in Puerto Rico, their home on U.S. soil. This is a devastating day for Mr. Vaello Madero and for Puerto Rico,” said Hermann Ferré.
The case arose from a lawsuit brought by the United States Government against José Luis Vaello Madero to recover about $28,000 in SSI payments he had received while residing in Puerto Rico. Mr. Vaello Madero’s primary defense to liability was that excluding Puerto Rico residents from the SSI program was unconstitutional because it denied them the right to be treated equally with other similarly situated citizens elsewhere in the Unites States. Both the district court and the First Circuit agreed with Mr. Vaello Madero, holding that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from SSI violated equal protection.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to reverse the First Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that Congress was not required to “extend Supplemental Security Income to residents of Puerto Rico to the same extent as to residents of the States.”[1] The Court determined that two per curiam, summary dispositions, Califano v. Gautier-Torres and Harris v. Rosario, “dictat[ed] the result.”[2] Based on those cases, the Court applied rational basis review and found that “Congress may distinguish the Territories from the States in tax and benefits programs, … so long as Congress has a rational basis for doing so.”[3]
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch issued separate concurring opinions. Justice Gorsuch denounced the “the rotten foundation” of the Insular Cases, which he noted were a result of explicit bigotry and an atextual interpretation of the Territory Clause. He urged the Court to “settle this question right,” and overrule those cases.[4]
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor highlighted that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the program was “utterly irrational.” “Residents of Puerto Rico who would be eligible for SSI are like SSI recipients in every material respect: They are needy U. S. citizens living in the United States,”[5] Justice Sotomayor wrote. She further explained that the Territory Clause “does not permit Congress to ignore the equally weighty constitutional command that it treat United States citizens equally.”[6]
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP (Curtis) represented Mr. Vaello Madero on a pro bono basis. The Curtis team includes partners Hermann Ferré and Juan Perla, as well as associates Robert Groot, Andrew Larkin, Lorena Guzmán-Díaz, Daniel Gomez, and Jean Lambert. Curtis has been assisted throughout by local counsel John W. Ferré-Crossley.
[1] United States v. Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). [2] Id. [3] Id.[4] Id. (Gorsuch, J., concurring).[5] Id. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).[6] Id. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Appellate Litigation
Hermann Ferré
Partner
Juan Perla
Robert Groot
Associate
Andrew Larkin
Lorena Guzmán-Díaz
Jean Marie Lambert
New York
+1 212 696 6000
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 452 7373
Event 06 Apr. 2022
Partner Hermann Ferré speaks at “The Future of the Insular Cases,” organized by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review
News 05 Nov. 2021
Appellate Associate Juan Perla Discusses Curtis’ Upcoming SCOTUS Argument on “Strict Scrutiny” Podcast
News 23 Nov. 2021
Curtis’ Historic Role in SCOTUS Case Discussed in “Advisory Opinions” Podcast
We use cookies on our website to enhance your browsing experience, match your interests and assess our website performance. We do not share information with any third-party for marketing purposes. Please view our privacy policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies.