The decision to deny SSI in Vaello-Madero was founded on the precedents established by Califano and Harris – the plan overturns them.

The Court holds that our prior decisions in Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) (per curiam), and Harris v. Ro- sario, 446 U. S. 651 (1980) (per curiam), require acceptance of this rationale. Ante, at 4–5. It is true that both Califano and Harris relied on Puerto Rico’s tax status to justify the unequal treatment of its residents. See Califano, 435 U. S., at 5, n. 7; Harris, 446 U. S., at 652. Neither case, however, stood for the principle that Puerto Rico’s tax status could justify any and all unequal treatment of its residents, and neither addressed the claims at issue here. Califano re- solved a claim under the right to travel, while Harris de- cided a challenge to the unequal distribution of block grants to the States and Puerto Rico under a separate benefits pro- gram. Those cases do not preclude an equal protection chal- lenge to a uniform, federalized, direct-to-individual poverty reduction program like SSI. Moreover, as summary dispo- sitions, Califano and Harris are not “of the same preceden- tial value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 671 (1974). And both Califano and Harris rested on the mistaken premise that residents of Puerto Rico do not con- tribute at all to the Federal Treasury. Califano, 435 U. S., at 5, n. 7; Harris, 446 U. S., at 652. Here, the United States concedes that “residents of Puerto Rico make some contri- butions to the federal treasury.” Brief for United States 19 (emphasis deleted).

Moreover, the Court overlooks the fact that SSI estab- lishes a direct relationship between the recipient and the Federal Government. The Federal Government develops uniform eligibility criteria, recipients apply for assistance directly to the Federal Government, and the Federal Gov- ernment disperses funds directly and uniformly to recipi- ents without regard to where they reside. Indeed, when it created SSI, Congress replaced existing programs that dif- fered between States as well as between States and Terri- tories and that involved States and Territories in adminis- tering the programs. Under the current system, the jurisdiction in which an SSI recipient resides has no bear- ing at all on the purposes or requirements of the SSI pro- gram. For this reason alone, it is irrational to tie an indi- vidual’s entitlement to SSI to that individua’s place of residency.

While it is true that residents of Puerto Rico typically are exempt from paying some federal taxes,5 that distinction does not create a rational basis to distinguish between them and other SSI recipients. By definition, SSI recipients pay few if any taxes at all, as the First Circuit correctly recog- nized below: “[B]y its very terms, only low-income individu- als lacking in monetary resources are eligible” for SSI. 956 F. 3d, at 27. In fact, to qualify for SSI, recipients must have an income well below the standard deduction for single tax filers. Ibid. It is “antithetical to the entire premise of the program” to hold that Congress can exclude citizens who can scarcely afford to pay any taxes at all on the basis that they do not pay enough taxes. Ibid

In some cases, it might be “reasonable for Congress to take account of the general balance of benefits to and bur- dens on” citizens when deciding eligibility for benefits. Ante, at 5. That is not a rational basis for this classification, however, because SSI is a means-tested program of last re- sort for the poorest Americans who lack the means even to pay taxes. 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.

The Court cautions that holding this classification uncon- stitutional would “usher in potentially far-reaching conse- quences,” such as requiring the extension of other federal programs to citizens who reside in all Territories. Ante, at 5. It bears noting that tax status did not preclude Congress’ extension of SSI to the Northern Mariana Islands, under- mining that justification as a rational basis to distinguish Puerto Rico from the States. In any event, the Court iden- tifies no federal program other than SSI that operates in such a uniform, nationalized, and direct manner. For in- stance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is administered by local governments. See Brief for Public Benefits Scholars as Amici Curiae 8–9. That distinction alone may justify differential treatment by jurisdiction of residence.

In fact, it is the Court’s holding that might have dramatic repercussions. If Congress can exclude citizens from safety- net programs on the ground that they reside in jurisdictions that do not pay sufficient taxes, Congress could exclude needy residents of Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska from benefits pro- grams on the basis that residents of those States pay less into the Federal Treasury than residents of other States.6 Congress has never enacted a uniform, nationalized direct assistance program, and then excluded entire States on the basis that the taxpaying residents of that State do not pay sufficient federal taxes. The Court’s holding today suggests that doing so would be constitutional and not a violation of the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of citizens.

SSI is designed to support the neediest citizens. As a pro- gram of last resort, it is aimed at preventing the most se- vere poverty. In view of that core purpose, denying benefits to hundreds of thousands of eligible Puerto Rico residents because they do not pay enough in taxes is utterly irra- tional.

Congress’ 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’ dire need for aid. Puerto Rico has a disproportionately large population of seniors and people with disabilities. See Brief for AARP et al. as Amici Curiae 8–10. The Census Bureau estimated that in 2019, 43.5% of residents of Puerto Rican residents lived below the poverty line—more than triple the national percentage of 12.3%. See C. Benson, American Community Survey Briefs, Poverty: 2018 and 2019, p. 5 (Sept. 2020), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2020/acs/acsbr20-04.pdf.

Equal treatment of citizens should not be left to the va- garies of the political process. Because residents of Puerto Rico do not have voting representation in Congress, they cannot rely on their elected representatives to remedy the punishing disparities suffered by citizen residents of Puerto Rico under Congress’ unequal treatment.