Non-unique – economic disruption should’ve been triggered already. Even if the plan causes it, the CNMI proves that economies stay stable.

Rationale #3: Economic Disruption. In 1978 and 1980, the Court in Torres and Rosario noted the federal government’s concerns about the eco- nomic disruption that would come from extending federal public benefits to Puerto Rican residents.257 The federal government has cited in its briefing that “published studies have concluded that SSI and SNAP payments are as- sociated with important work-disincentivizing effects.”258 The federal gov- ernment has also represented that “Congress could . . . rationally conclude that these effects [could] be more severe in Puerto Rico” because of the island’s weaker economic situation compared to the rest of the United States.259

It is beyond dispute that the federal government’s economic policy to- wards Puerto Rico is markedly different today. At the time Torres and Ro- sario were decided, Congress had legislated significant tax incentives for corporations doing business in Puerto Rico.260 Congress repealed those tax exemptions in 1996.261 Furthermore, Congress recently created an oversight board to oversee Puerto Rico’s budget in light of the economic fallout from Hurricane Maria and the island’s bankruptcy.262 But it is not clear which way these changes cut.263 Should courts interpret this legislative activity as evi- dence that the Torres/Rosario rationales are outdated and therefore the equal protection challenges can proceed? Or should courts look at this new con- gressional activity as evidence that Congress is actively legislating in this area and the courts should get out of the way?

Beyond the Torres/Rosario rationales, it is also difficult to justify the pol- icy in light of the fact that some territories are included in the statutory schemes for SSI, SNAP, and Medicare Part D but Puerto Rico and other ter- ritories are not.264 As laid out in Part II, Northern Mariana Islanders are eli- gible for the SSI program, despite having similar tax liability to Puerto Ricans. Guamanians and Virgin Islanders can receive SNAP even though Americans who reside in other territories cannot. But the federal govern- ment argued on appeal in Vaello-Madero that there is no doctrine for territo- ries comparable to, say, the equal footing doctrine for tribes.265 This is an inapt analogy. The federal government misapprehends the unit of analysis— it is not the territory, but the American citizen who resides there. Our consti- tutional order does have an equal footing doctrine—for citizens. Indeed, the question in Vaello-Madero is the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of full, national citizenship and its application to Americans who live in the U.S. territories.

Besides, this is not a question of a gradation of different services. Ameri- cans who live in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are denied access to the nation’s disability assistance program—full stop. And Americans in all the territories confront a federal law that caps aid; if too many of them seek healthcare through Medicaid, they are out of luck. If the oldest democracy and wealthiest country on the planet lacks a constitutional commitment to protect its citizens from the most elemental of deprivations, what exactly does our equal protection jurisprudence protect?