Publication Date
6-1-2025
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in United States v. Vaello Madero has reignited discussions about the application of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to residents of U.S. territories. This Article examines how the ruling, which upheld the exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, reflects and reshapes the constitutional relationship between the federal government and territorial inhabitants. Although the Court said it was not “irrational” for Congress to exclude Puerto Rico (applying only “rational basis” review), that very ruling underscored a longstanding tension: U.S. citizens in the territories do not receive the same constitutional or statutory protections and benefits as stateside residents. Vaello Madero was indeed a “fresh reminder” of a broken system—yet it did more than just remind people. It brought the issue to the front pages and made it harder to ignore that the Court continues to allow (or at least not actively dismantle) the doctrinal underpinnings that let Congress legislate differently for U.S. territories. That, in turn, reignited the discussion of how (and whether) the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments fully apply there. The ruling in this case was partly a fresh reminder of how the territories remain “outside” many constitutional guarantees, but there was also something more pointed going on in Vaello Madero. It did not merely rehash known inequalities; it prompted broader debate in Puerto Rico, in the media, and amongst legal scholars because of how directly the Court’s majority (and Justice Gorsuch in concurrence) addressed—and then sidestepped—questions surrounding the Insular Cases and the scope of the Constitution in the territories. While the Court based its decision on the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the differential treatment it permits, Vaello Madero raises critical questions about the extent to which the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees apply to residents of U.S. territories. This Article delves into the historical context of the Insular Cases and their doctrine of “separate and unequal” constitutional applicability in the U.S. territories, evaluating their continued validity in modern jurisprudence. This Article argues that Vaello Madero perpetuates a second-class citizenship status for territorial residents, which conflicts with contemporary interpretations of equal protection and due process. It explores the potential for legislative and judicial remedies to address these disparities and advocates for a reevaluation of outdated legal precedents. By highlighting the tension between constitutional principles and territorial policies—both congressional laws that apply exclusively in the territories and legislation passed by territorial governments—this Article adds to the scholarship in this area by underscoring the need for a more inclusive application of the Fourteenth Amendment. Especially considering current threats to our constitutional rule of government, ensuring that all U.S. citizens receive equal protection under the law, regardless of their geographic location, is more critical than ever.
First Page
939
Recommended Citation
Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco, Islands of Inequality: The Fourteenth Amendment's Reach after Vaello Madero, 102 Denv. L. Rev. 939 (Fall 2025).