Harris v. Rosario

Background

A group of families who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and live in Puerto Rico sued the federal government after a district court ruled that two federal statutes that give Puerto Rico less AFDC money than States violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment. The case challenged 42 U.S.C. §§ 1308 and 1396d(b). The district court certified a class of United States citizens living in Puerto Rico who receive AFDC and found for the plaintiffs.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Congress, under the Constitution’s Territory Clause, may treat Puerto Rico differently from States when setting federal benefit levels. The Court, in a brief per curiam opinion, reversed the district court and held that such different treatment is lawful if there is a rational basis. The opinion relied on Califano v. Torres and pointed to three justifications in the record: residents of Puerto Rico do not pay into the federal treasury, treating Puerto Rico like a State would substantially increase federal costs (the Secretary estimated about $30 million yearly for AFDC and up to $240 million for related programs), and larger federal payments could disrupt Puerto Rico’s economy.

Real world impact

The ruling means Puerto Rican AFDC recipients may continue to receive lower federal aid than similar families in States. It confirms that Congress can draw funding distinctions for territories when a rational justification is shown. The decision was issued without full briefing or oral argument, so the practical rules were set by a summary reversal rather than a full merits opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, arguing the Court acted too quickly, noting that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, and criticizing the economic-disruption rationale and the lack of full briefing; he would have heard argument.