WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether it is unconstitutional to exclude people living in Puerto Rico from Supplemental Social Security Income.
The justices said they would hear an appeal, first filed by the Trump administration, of a lower-court ruling that held that residents of the U.S. territory should have the same access to SSI benefits as older, disabled and blind Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The administration argues that a pair of 40-year-old Supreme Court decisions already upheld the federal law that created SSI and excluded Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories from it. Congress later added in the Mariana Islands.
In recent months, a federal judge ruled that Puerto Rico residents should have access to other federal welfare benefits from which they have been excluded as well. A federal judge in Guam said residents of that Pacific island also should be able to collect SSI.
A separate program, Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled, covers residents of the territories, but it has more stringent eligibility requirements and pays less generous benefits than SSI.
- Posted March 03, 2021
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Justices to weigh Puerto Rico access to U.S. aid

headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Oscar vs. Jeff: Trial lawyers and appellate counsel do different jobs, and it may show in their writing
- ‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial
- ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech
- After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases
- ‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges
- Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone