The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
After 5 Relists, SCOTUS Grants Cert in Puerto Rico Case Biden SG Will Probably Switch Positions On
In September, candidate-Biden tweeted that he would not support the Trump Administration's position before the Supreme Court
In September, Acting Solicitor Jeff Wall filed a cert petition in United States v. Vaello-Madero. This appeal from the First Circuit presented the question of whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment by excluding Puerto Rico from a social security program. At the time, then-candidate Biden tweeted that "This ends when I'm elected President." In other words, his administration would not take this position.
Time and again, the president has refused to provide Puerto Rico with much-needed resources. He's repeatedly insulted Puerto Ricans and this latest action is another example of his disrespect for the island.
This ends when I'm elected president. https://t.co/FitVSFl8bS
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 7, 2020
The briefing concluded on November 24, and the petition was distributed for conference on December 11. The case was then relisted five times. Finally, it was granted on February 26. Usually when a case is relisted several times, a Justice is working on a dissent from denial of cert. But here, after percolation, there was apparently enough support for a grant.
It is also possible that the Court was waiting for Acting SG Elizabeth Prelogar to withdraw the cert petition. Amy Howe observed at SCOTUSBlog:
Last month, Democratic lawmakers and religious leaders urged President Joe Biden to withdraw the lawsuit and give Puerto Rico residents access to SSI benefits, but Biden's acting solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, did not take any action in the case after replacing Wall. The justices granted the government's petition on Monday; absent any further developments, the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the fall.
But that petition was not withdrawn. And the Biden administration will now have to reverse its position.
In rare cases, the Solicitor General will decline to defend a lower-court judgment. But usually in those cases, the losing party petitioned the Court for review. Here, the SG of one administration petitioned the Court for review, then the SG of another administration will agree with the lower-court decision.
As a result, the Court may appoint an amicus to defend the position taken by the SG's former cert petition. Or the Court could DIG the case altogether.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Or Puerto Rico could be admitted to statehood by midyear. Douglass Commonwealth likely will be admitted first, but Puerto Rico (and, ideally, Pacific Islands) might be close behind.
Six new senators, making America great!
Don't you think the citizens of Puerto Rico should actually determine for themselves if they want to be a state? Clearly and unambiguously?
Or should you as big strong white man, decide what Puerto Rico should do, instead of them letting them choose for themselves.
Isn’t that what the November 2020 referendum was supposed to do?
Not really. See, it wasn't a "yes or no" question. It was more of a false choice.
A "No" response was as follows: "According to Senate Bill 1467, which placed the referendum on the ballot, voting "No" on the referendum would have meant that a seven-member commission would have been appointed to negotiate with the federal government for the free association or independence of Puerto Rico"
So it wasn't "Yes Statehood, or No Statehood". It was "statehood or independence/free association". There was no option for the status quo, which many prefer.
These "false choices" are not a sign of an honest referendum.
Here's noted conservative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the same subject of PR's flawed referendums, and how forcing PR to statehood without their approval would be " not an end to colonization, but the culmination of it."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/puerto-rico-not-congress-must-determine-its-future-our-bill-ncna1238032
I think it really doesn't matter, since there aren't the votes in the senate for statehood.
That's not really correct.
To start with, Statehood would only require 51 votes in the Senate. Or 50+ the VP.
Adding on that, several Republican Senators have voiced their support for statehood for PR. Rubio for example and Rick Scott. The 2016 GOP Party Platform explicitly supports PR statehood.
The real issue are the flawed referendums and the lack of consensus on the part of PR's citizens to decide what they want.
How about these parasites start paying taxes first? Why did Congress ever grant a group of Tainos citizenship in the first place?
So, SSI is funded by the general Treasury Fund....Federal income taxes primarily. Meanwhile Puerto Rico is categorically excluded from paying Federal Income taxes (except for federal employees). Being a Commonwealth has its benefits (no federal income tax!) and costs (No SSI).
Please note, I'm talking specifically about Federal Income Taxes. Not FICA.
Another possibility: Joe was lying.
Or somebody else wrote the message.
Do the plaintiffs claim not being subjected to taxation violates Due Process, or only not receiving tax-funded spending?