By: Adonte Yearwood
Published: June 4, 2025
Examining Congress’ administration of federal welfare programs demonstrates a robust attempt at combatting poverty and its (Congress’) continued discrimination against thousands of needy Americans living in the United States territories (hereafter, “territorial residents”). Five islands comprise America’s overseas territories: Guam, American Samoa (“Samoa”), the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the “CNMI”) located in the Pacific Ocean, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands (the “USVI”) in the Caribbean Sea.[1] These islands constitute sovereign U.S. soil, and everyone born on these islands is a U.S. citizen by birthright, except for Samoans.[2] Despite this, Congress continuously discriminates against territorial residents in its extension of federal welfare programs, which help sustain millions of state residents above the poverty line.[3]
Reviewing the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) program’s statutory construction highlights Congress’ intentional and unequal protection of vulnerable territorial residents. Created in 1972, the SSI program provides direct deposits “of last resort” to low-income individuals ages sixty-five and older or those with a qualifying disability.[4] Indeed, the statute that promulgates the program mandates that benefits be administered to all qualified United States residents.[5]
That poses no issue for Floridians, for example, who received a monthly average of $598.21 from the SSI program in 2022[6]. The SSI statute, however, disadvantages territorial residents where it explicitly defines the United States as “the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”[7] If the program were to apply in Puerto Rico, hundreds of thousands of residents would qualify for and receive SSI aid. Despite this, Congress continues to promulgate the Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled program in the territories, an initiative replaced by the SSI program in the states and is miniscule in comparison.[9] Thus, SSI’s inapplicability in Puerto Rico and the remaining territories manifests Congress’ unequal extension of welfare protection to otherwise qualified territorial residents.[10]
The government’s argument in the United States v. Vaello-Madero decision further highlights the intentionality of its discrimination against territorial residents by creating new rules regarding welfare eligibility. In Vaello-Madero, the government cited the territories’ federal tax-exemption status as a sufficient basis to exclude them from the SSI program,[11] and the Supreme Court agreed.[12] In doing so, the Court provided Congress with a new basis to discriminate against territorial residents regarding federal welfare.[13]
Territorial residents pay federal taxes.[14] For example, Puerto Rico contributes more to federal taxes than several states.[15] Thus, the government’s argument in Vaello-Madero was not that territorial residents do not contribute to federal taxes and should be excluded; instead, the government argued that territorial citizens could pay more to federal taxes but do not and should, therefore, be excluded.[16] Congress has never argued such a position; no such rule applies to states.[17] Hence, the novel position manifests the government’s continued intent to discriminate against territorial residents.[18]
Territorial residents’ consistently high poverty rates, despite eligibility for some federal welfare programs, demonstrate Congress’ need to extend the whole armament of federal welfare equally to vulnerable territorial residents. State residents have unhindered access to every federal welfare program, which helps keep them above the poverty line.[19] To the contrary, in figuring out which welfare program applies in which territory, it appears as though Congress used a random name generator: a program may apply in one territory but not the other.[20] A result of such variability in the application of federal welfare is that the territories have the highest poverty rates in the nation.[21] For instance, 43.5% of Puerto Ricans and almost 60% of Samoans live in poverty, while the poorest states’ rates hover around 19%.[22] Additionally, vulnerable populations like the blind, disabled, and the young comprise large portions of those figures, although only a few federal welfare programs operate in the islands.[23] The disparity demonstrates Congress’ need to extend all federal welfare programs to the territorial residents, who stand only to benefit from full access.[24]
Territorial residents have long been considered an “other.”[25] Indeed, current binding Supreme Court precedent declares that the entire Constitution does not apply to territorial residents because they are of “alien races.”[26] Today, Congress upholds the same principles but attempts to mask them under the guise of a “tax contribution” argument.[27] Territorial residents are Americans and have undoubtedly been a part of this country dating to the nineteenth century.[28] Thus they, like their state counterparts, are entitled to the federal government’s complete protection via welfare, particularly for those unable to care for themselves.[29] Congress, in facilitating otherwise, contravenes a constitutional imperative to treat all Americans equally.[30]
[1] See United States Territorial Acquisitions, BallotPedia, https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_territorial_acquisitions (last accessed Mar. 4, 2024) (listing America’s remaining inhabited territories by acquisition date and citizenship status).
[2] See id. (stating that Samoans are born U.S. nationals).
[3] See, e.g., United States v. Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. 159, 162-63 (2022) (showing that Congress restricts the Supplemental Security Income program to the fifty states and the CNMI).
[4] See Soc. Sec’y Admin., SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2022 1 (2023), https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2022/ssi_asr22.pdf (detailing the SSI program’s plan to support aged, blind, and disabled individuals with minimal finances).
[5] See 42 U.S.C. § 1381a (stating that “every aged, blind, or disabled individual” who meets program requirements “shall” receive benefits).
[6] See Soc. Sec’y Admin., supra note 4, at 33, tbl.11 (showing that thousands of Floridians received SSI aid in 2022).
[7] See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(e). But see Covenant, Commw. L. Revision Comm’n, https://cnmilaw.org/cov.php#gsc.tab=0 (portraying the “Covenant,” an express agreement between Congress and the CNMI government to extend the SSI program to the territory).
[8] See Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 190-91 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (finding that over 300,000 Puerto Ricans would have qualified for SSI aid in 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 1381a (mandating that aid be dispersed to all qualified candidates).
[9] See Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 192 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (finding that Puerto Rican AABD recipients received a monthly average of $82 in 2021 while SSI recipients received a monthly average of $574 in 2021).
[10] See, e.g., id. at 197 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“Residents of Puerto who would be eligible for SSI are like SSI recipients in every material respect: [t]hey are needy U.S. citizens living in the United States.”)
[11] See id. at 164 (explaining that territorial citizens are generally exempt from federal income, gift, estate, and excise taxes).
[12] See id. at 166 (holding that Congress’ exclusion of territories from the SSI program does not violate the Fifth Amendment).
[13] See id. at 197 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (discussing that the majority’s decision may allow Congress to exclude jurisdictions from welfare programs based on their tax contribution).
[14] See id. at 196 n.5 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (stating the territorial residents pay federal Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes).
[15] See id. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (finding that Puerto Rico’s federal tax contribution was more than that of Vermont and several other states from 1998 to 2006).
[16] See id. at 197 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (asserting that the government’s argument in Vaello-Madero was that the territories do not contribute enough to federal taxes).
[17] See id. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (finding that Congress had never enacted a federal direct assistance program and then excluded states based on residents’ federal tax contribution before the Vaello-Madero decision in 2022).
[18] See, e.g., id. at 190-91 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (discussing Congress’ continued funding of a program in Puerto Rico that was replaced by the SSI program in states and provides substantially less government assistance to the same target populations).
[19] See Karl Racine & Leevin Camacho, Dear SCOTUS, 3.5 Million Americans in Territories Deserve Same Federal Benefits, Off. Att’y Gen. D.C. (Nov. 9, 2021), https://oag.dc.gov/release/op-ed-dear-scotus-35-million-americans-territories#:~:text=However%2C%20nearly%2023%25%20of%20Guamanians,them%20the%20most%20are%20excluded (stating that federal welfare helps lift families out of poverty).
[20] See e.g., id. (discussing the variability in the application of SNAP and TANF, federal programs providing financial benefits, amongst the territories although they apply in every state); Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 163-64 (listing the CNMI as the sole territory where SSI operates); see also Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 166 (stating that Congress’ power includes “discretion over . . . federal tax and benefits programs for [territorial residents].”).
[21] See Racine & Camacho, supra note 19 (expressing that poverty rates in the territories far exceed that of the poorest states).
[22] Id.
[23] See e.g., Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 191-92 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (discussing that over 300,000 low-income Puerto Ricans aged sixty-five and older or with a qualifying disability were deprived of the SSI program in 2011).
[24] See Racine & Camacho, supra note 19 (stating that federal welfare programs “lift families and children out of poverty.”).
[25] See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 287 (1901) (holding that the territories are part of the United States but that the whole Constitution does not apply to them because its residents are of “alien races” and may be unable to understand “Anglo-Saxon principles”).
[26] Id.; see also Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 182 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (acknowledging that the Downes decision is part of a group of rulings called the Insular Cases that were decided based on racist principles, are still binding precedent, and need to be overturned).
[27] See Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 195-96 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (citing Congress’ novel argument, asserting that tax contribution is a basis to exclude jurisdictions from a welfare program).
[28] See, e.g., BallotPedia, supra note 1 (stating that Puerto Rico has been under United States domain since 1898).
[29] See Vaello-Madero, 596 U.S. at 197 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (describing SSI benefits as “last resort” financial benefits for low-income vulnerable populations); id. at 198 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (emphasizing that the Constitution precludes Congress from “treat[ing] United States citizens [un]equally”).
[30] Id. at 198 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).