Today, Supreme Court weighs whether it's unlawful to exclude Puerto Rico from a benefits program that all Americans on the mainland are eligible for:
reuters.com/world/us/us-su…
This is a case that the Biden administration continued despite criticism while also asking Congress to extend the SSI benefit to Puerto Rico, which it might do if the Build Back Better plan ever passes
One question is whether any of the justices will delve into the toxic legacy of the so-called "Insular Cases" from over a century ago that helped establish second-class status for Puerto Ricans. More here:
The case being argued today involves a guy called Jose Luis Vaello-Madero but there are potentially more than 300,000 Puerto Rico residents who could be eligible for the benefit at a cost of $2 billion annually if he wins his case
Vaello-Madero found out he was being sued by the federal government a few weeks before he lost the roof of his home in Hurricane Irma. Then Hurricane Maria came a couple of weeks later, devastating the island
Justice Gorsuch: "why shouldn’t we just admit that the insular cases were incorrectly decided?"
Justice Sotomayor: "Puerto Ricans are citizens and the Constitution applies to them. Their needy people are being treated different to the needy people in the 50 states."
An interesting argument has concluded with lots of broad strokes discussion about Puerto Rico's status. Despite probing questions of the federal government, it still seems like Vaello-Madero probably faces an uphill battle among the conservative justices

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lawrence Hurley

Lawrence Hurley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @lawrencehurley

29 Oct
BREAKING: Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether to limit EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants
In both these cases the Supreme Court is hearing cases involving federal regulations issued by the previous administration that were thrown out by lower courts and that the current administration has no intention of pursuing. The court in the past would generally avoid such cases
Read 8 tweets
18 Oct
BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of two different police requests seeking "qualified immunity" legal defense in excessive force cases
Supreme Court issues two summary rulings in favor of cops in cases where the lower courts had denied qualified immunity. No dissents
In one case, cop in California was accused of using excessive force while handcuffing a suspect while in the other, cops in Oklahoma fatally shot a man wielding a hammer
Read 10 tweets
14 Oct
Supreme Court commission "discussion materials" are out
whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/publi…
Commission says "risks of court expansion are considerable" and "would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver"
Members of the commission "are divided on whether court expansion would be wise."
Read 8 tweets
13 Oct
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
The court has never posted the justices’ financial reports. If you want to see them you have to get copies by applying to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(h/t @nateraymond for spotting the phantom menu option)
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct
Supreme Court announces action on pending appeals at 9:30, including potentially some big ones left over from last week
Supreme Court then hears oral arguments in an abortion case that's not really about abortion on whether Kentucky AG can intervene to defend an abortion restriction struck down by lower courts
Supreme Court doesn't add any new cases
Read 5 tweets
9 Sep
After a car chase, cop opened fire when suspect put stopped car in reverse. Officer “fired 11 shots through the back windshield and side windows as the car passed near him. Then he changed magazines and fired another 10 shots.” Driver was killed and passengers injured. QI granted
Dissent: use of deadly force not justified. Car was not aimed at cop, was moving slowly and cop did not provide any warning before shooting.

“And not only do I believe the majority opinion is wrong, but I worry that it sets a dangerous standard for police use of force”
We featured a factually similar case in our qualified immunity series in which QI also granted:
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(