Califano v. Gautier Torres Califano v. Bracero Colon

Decision Date27 February 1978
Docket Number77-126,Nos. 77-88,s. 77-88
Citation55 L.Ed.2d 65,98 S.Ct. 906,435 U.S. 1
PartiesJoseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Cesar GAUTIER TORRES. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Carmelo BRACERO COLON et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court


Certain benefits under the Social Security Act, as amended in 1972, are payable only to residents of the United States, defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held in these cases that this geographic limitation is unconstitutional as applied to persons who upon moving to Puerto Rico lost the benefits to which they were entitled while residing in the United States. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act, has appealed.1


One of the 1972 amendments to the Social Security Act created a uniform program, known as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, for aid to qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons. 86 Stat. 1465, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V). This federally administered program replaced the federal-state programs of Old Age Assistance, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.; Aid to the Blind, 49 Stat. 645, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.; Aid to the Disabled, 64 Stat. 555, 42 U.S.C. § 1351 et seq.; and Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.

The exclusion of Puerto Rico in the amended program is apparent in the definitional section. Section 1611(f) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1382(f) (1970 ed., Supp. V), states that no individual is eligible for benefits during any month in which he or she is outside the United States. The Act defines "the United States" as "the 50 States and the District of Columbia." § 1614(e), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). The repeal of the pre-existing programs did not apply to Puerto Rico. Thus persons in Puerto Rico are not eligible to receive SSI benefits, but are eligible to receive benefits under the pre-existing programs.2

Appellee Torres received SSI benefits while residing in Connecticut; the benefits were discontinued when he moved to Puerto Rico. Similarly, appellees Colon and Vega received benefits as residents of Massachusetts and New Jersey, respectively, but lost them on moving to Puerto Rico.3

Torres filed a complaint in the District Court of Puerto Rico claiming that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI program was unconstitutional, and a three-judge court was convened to adjudicate the suit. Viewing the geographic limitations in the law as an interference with the constitutional right of residents of the 50 States and the District of Columbia to travel, the court searched for a compelling governmental interest to justify such interference. Finding none, the court held §§ 1611(f) and 1614(e) unconstitutional as applied to Torres. Torres v. Mathews, 426 F.Supp. 1106.4 Soon after that decision, appellees Colon and Vega also sued in the Puerto Rico District Court. Relying on the Torres decision, a single judge enjoined the Social Security Administration from discontinuing their SSI benefits on the basis of their change of residency to Puerto Rico.5


In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974), this Court held that laws prohibiting newly arrived residents in a State or county from receiving the same vital benefits as other residents unconstitutionally burdened the right of interstate travel. As the Court said in Memorial Hospital, "the right of interstate travel must be seen as insuring new residents the same right to vital governmental benefits and privileges in the States to which they migrate as are enjoyed by other residents." Id., at 261, 94 S.Ct. at 1084.

In the present cases the District Court altogether transposed that proposition. It held that the Constitution requires that a person who travels to Puerto Rico must be given benefits superior to those enjoyed by other residents of Puerto Rico if the newcomer enjoyed those benefits in the State from which he came. This Court has never held that the constitutional right to travel embraces any such doctrine, and we decline to do so now.6 Such a doctrine would apply with equal force to any benefits a State might provide for its residents, and would require a State to continue to pay those b nefits indefinitely to any persons who had once resided there. And the broader implications of such a doctrine in other areas of substantive law would bid fair to destroy the independent power of each State under our Constitution to enact laws uniformly applicable to all of its residents.

If there ever could be a case where a person who has moved from one State to another might be entitled to invoke the law of the State from which he came as a corollary of his constitutional right to travel, this is surely not it. For we deal here with a constitutional attack upon a law providing for governmental payments of monetary benefits. Such a statute "is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality." Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 185, 97 S.Ct. 431, 434, 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976). "So long as its judgments are rational, and not invidious, the legislature's efforts to tackle the problems of the poor and the needy are not subject to a constitutional straitjacket." Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 546, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 1731, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972). See also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 53-54, 98 S.Ct. 95, 99-100, 54 L.Ed.2d 228; Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 210, 97 S.Ct. 1021, 1028, 51 L.Ed.2d 270 (1977); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 57 S.Ct. 904, 908, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937).7

The judgments are reversed.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN would affirm.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL would note probable jurisdiction and set these cases for oral argument.

1 This Court's jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1252.

2 The SSI benefits are significantly larger.

3 The record does not show whether the appellees applied for benefits under the pre-existing programs while in Puerto Rico.

4 The complaint had also relied on the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in attacking the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI program. Acceptance of that claim would have meant that all otherwise qualified persons in Puerto Rico are entitled to SSI benefits, not just those who received such benefits before moving to Puerto Rico. But the District Court apparently acknowledged that Congress has the power to treat Puerto Rico differently, and that every federal program does not have to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • Martínez v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-01206-WGY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • August 3, 2020
    ...States and about half that of the poorest state ...."); Jurisdictional Statement at 8 n.7, 1977 WL 204941, Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) (per curiam) (No. 77-88) ("Per capita income of residents in the United States in 1969 was $3,189; for residents of Puerto Rico it was $98......
  • Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • September 18, 1980
    ...that "Puerto Rico has a relationship to the United States `that has no parallel in our history'" Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 3 n. 4, 98 S.Ct. 906, 907 n. 4, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978), quoting from Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 596, 91 S.Ct. 2264, 2278, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976......
  • Segovia v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for Chi.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 23, 2016
    ...However, they all involve "a constitutional attack upon a law providing for governmental payments of monetary benefits." Califano , 435 U.S. at 5, 98 S.Ct. 906. This type of statute "is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality." Id . (internal quotations omitted). In contrast, ......
  • Long v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 2, 2020
    ...... can be regulated within the bounds of due process." Haig , 453 U.S. at 307, 101 S.Ct. 2766 (citing Califano v. Torres , 435 U.S. 1, 4 n.6, 98 S.Ct. 906, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) ); see also Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958) ("The right to travel is a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Boom and Bust on the Great Plains: Deja Vu All Over Again
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 41, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...L. COOPER, DUST TO EAT: DROUGHT AND DEPRESSION IN THE 1930'S 8 (2004). 54. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999); Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978). 55. 314 U.S. 160 (1941). The Edwards court held that a state provision that penalized the transportation of nonresident indigent perso......
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 8, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...221, at 23. (224.) Mem'l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 261-62 (1974) (citing Shapiro, 394 U.S. at 634). (225.) Id. at 261. (226.) 435 U.S. 1,4 (1978) (per (227.) Torres, 435 U.S. at 4-5. (228.) Id. at 4 & n.6. (229.) Id. at 5. (230.) Id. at 5 n.7. (231.) Id. (232.) Harris v. Ro......
  • Trying to fit an oval shaped island into a square constitution: arguments for Puerto Rican statehood.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 4, April 2002
    • April 1, 2002
    ...Van Dyke, supra note 90, at 452. (104.) Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651, 651-52 (1980) (welfare benefits); see also Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 5 (1978) (social security (105.) Van Dyke, supra note 90, at 477 n.177. (106.) See note 57 and accompanying text. (107.) Van Dyke, supra note 9......
  • Coalitions and Collective Memories: a Search for Common Ground - Ediberto Roman
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 58-2, January 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...Comment. 15, 15 (1994). Similarly, the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) does not apply to Puerto Rico. See Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 2 (1978) (holding that government benefits of a state citizen do not transfer when that citizen moves to Puerto Rico). Benefits under a simila......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT