Event 23 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at the 52nd IDRI Professional Accreditation & Membership Programme
more
Event 14 Oct. 2022
Curtis Provides Capacity Training to the Government of Uganda
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Article 22 Aug. 2023
Fuad Zarbiyev Publishes Article in Journal of International Economic Law
Client Alert 14 Aug. 2023
The EU’s Market in Crypto Assets (MiCA) Regulation: The Highlights
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Event 11 Jul. 2023
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on the Role of the ICC in Investment Disputes
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
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
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.