*1 allegedly unlaw- in the participated it defendants; TORRES, of the other on behalf conduct Cesar GAUTIER ful similarly through which scheme merely tool and all others himself Plaintiff, situated, was carried out. Nevertheless, Hughes now owned and is who, investors, managed by Boggs and the Secretary Health, MATHEWS, David and di- capacity their shareholders Welfare, and Defendant. Education rectors, their formally acquisi- ratified have Civ. No. 75-1331. Hughes and its ICC certificate. tion Court, officially States District Hughes linked has thus Rico. D. Puerto wrongful transaction. More allegedly
this Hughes, ownership important, under 14, 1977. Feb. management Boggs and inves- tors, profit continues the use reasons, plaintiff For certificate.
ICC Hughes as de-
has named a defendant and accounting such relief as an
manded
relinquishment profits of all traceable certificate.26 facts, say I cannot
Under these against failed to a claim has state
plaintiff granted
Hughes upon which relief can be Hughes is therefore entitled to Hughes a matter of law. re-
judgment Cannon, F.Supp. Gibson v.
lies but, moving party unlike the
(E.D.Pa.1971), case, Hughes independent- an party played only third an
ly owned which alleged. in the facts In- role
incidental
stead, Hughes intricately involved in remains the transaction issue and property takeover is in whose
owner
dispute. facts be determined
Material remain to case, Hughes to a entitled Hughes’ as a matter of law.
judgment summary judgment therefore
motion
bewill denied. occurrence, pro- transaction, generally
26. See Fed.R.Civ.P. or series of the same any question vides: or occurrences and transactions fact common to all will or defendants persons joined of law may “All in one the action. A arise in defendant against defendants if action as there is asserted defending severally, alternative, jointly, in . not be interested need them any right arising against respect relief in of or all the relief demanded.” out
individuals who disabled.” 42 U.S.C. 1381. Pursuant § 1611(f) SSA, Section 42 U.S.C. 1382(f), eligible no individual is for these § during any month in which benefits “such is outside of the individual United States.” Furthermore, provides statute that once “an individual has been outside the United any period States of 30 consecutive days, he shall be as remaining treated out- side the United until he has States been in period the United for a States 30 consec- days.” utive The term “disabled” is defined, part, as one who “is a resident of States.” 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(l)(B). turn, 1614(e) Section § SSA, 42 1382c(e), defines § “ States’, ‘United used in geographi- above, sense” cal as indicated as meaning and the States District of Columbia. Plaintiff, a citizen of the United eligible found to be to receive SSI benefits, due to disability, residing while Hartford, During Connecticut. the months November, September through 1975 he monthly payments received in the amount of $157.70.
On November
Plaintiff moved
Juan,
Shortly
Puerto Rico.
after his
San
arrival
there he
Security
visited the Social
change
offices to inform
Agency
of his
address,
in order to enable him to contin-
Suarez,
Amauri
de
Legales
Luis
Servicios
there,
receiving
ue
his
checks. While
SSI
Rico, Inc.,
P.R.,
plain-
Puerto
Hato Rey,
verbally
Plaintiff was
notified
an em-
tiff.
of this
ployee
Agency
he had rendered
Sanchez,
Morales
Atty.,
Julio
D.
ineligible
himself
to receive further SSI
Rico,
P.R.,
Juan,
San
for defendant.
change
his
of resi-
benefits
reason of
to Puerto
dence
Rico. Plaintiff was
McENTEE,
Judge,
Before
Circuit
TOLE-
immediately
structed
turn over
TORRUELLA,
DO,
Dis-
Judge
Chief
Security Administration
SSI
Social
Judge.
trict
while he resided in Puerto
benefits received
Rico.
OPINION
ado,
proceeded
Without further
Plaintiff
TORRUELLA,
Judge.
which he seeks
to file the
action in
residency requirement
have the
set aside
Security
XVI
Act
Title
of the Social
contravening
process
the due
clause of
(SSA),
seq.,
1381 et
also known
U.S.C. §
(SSI)
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution
Supplemental Security
Income
program
“a national
of the United
On November
program,1 establishes
States.
2284(3),
pursuant
supplemental security income to
to 28 U.S.C.
provide
§
Public Law
October
86 Stat.1465.
the exclusion
Plaintiff
contends
injury
finding
irreparable
specific
after
the United
benefits of a citizen of
from SSI
Plaintiff,
a tem-
District Court issued
change in
reason of his
the sole
against
restraining order
Defendant
porary
repugnant
residence
of Plaintiff’s
the discontinuance
prohibiting
Amendment of the Constitution
Fifth
ques-
time
until such
as the
in that
it establishes
the United States
*3
by
by
the
raised
this suit
decided
tions
arbitrary
vi-
and
classification
irrational
an
for
Judge
Court
District
convened
Three
equal protection component
the
of
olative
purposes.
these
process clause of said Constitu-
due
19,1975
Security
December
On
Social
grounds
provision. As alternative
tional
Plaintiff a “Notice of
Administration sent
contends
the statute
Plaintiff further
that
he
Action” wherein
was informed
Planned
question infringes upon
his
in
suspended
his
benefits would
be
right to travel
freedom of movement
1,
December
This Notice
effective
1975.
him,
for
qualify
forces
in order to
advised
his appeal rights.
Plaintiff of
also
essential),
(which
to him are
compliance
outstanding
In
Court’s
remain
within the 50
States
order,
restraining
the Notice
temporary
of
Columbia.
would
to re-
that Plaintiff
continue
stated
replies
legislation
Defendant
this
his
re-
ceive
SSI benefits while the order
by Congress
exercise
valid
constitutes
in effect.
mained
powers pursuant
the territori-
plenary
its
19,
January
proceeded
On
1976 Plaintiff
IV,
3 of the
al clause
Article
Section
“Request
file
the Administration a
Constitution,
arbitrary classifi-
that no
Reconsideration
the Notice of
for
by
question.
cation
created
Statute
20, 1976
February
Planned Action.” On
Cases,2
Relying
the so-called Insular
Request
grounds
denied.
for
this
was
As
protec-
equal
Defendant claims
“[t]he
action, it
stated: “Although you
this
component
process clause of
of the due
tion
eligibility, .you
all other factors of
do
meet
Fifth Amendment
the Constitution
requirements.
meet
residence
To
not
Congress
afford
require
does
eligible
Supplemental Security
for
In-
same
Puerto
Commonwealth of
checks, you must live
the 50
in one of
scope
come
of its enact-
treatment under
or Washington D.C.”
though
it were
state.”
States
ments
point
starting
last
is the
This
contention
preliminary
procedural
After several
by
questions
raised
the resolution of
for
terchanges the Administration has affirmed
case.
decision
42
purposes
its
as final
no
405(g),
concluding
thus
§
Cases,
prod-
which where the
The Insular
reme-
further exhaustion of administrative
acquisition
the United States
uct of
Eldridge,
necessary.
dies is
Mathews v.
after the
non-contiguous territories
various
319,
893,
War,
18
424 U.S.
96 S.Ct.
47 L.Ed.2d
Spanish-American
termination
Salfi,
749,
(1976); Weinberger v.
422 U.S.
of whether the Constitu-
resolved
issue
2457,
de-
(1975);
flag.”
45
20
After much
L.Ed.2d 522
“follows the
95 S.Ct.
tion
Rico, 258
bate,3
Balzac v. Porto
the Court in
416.1424c.
CFR
Bidwell,
743,
1,
Lowell,
2. De Lima
The Status of
New Posses-
(1899);
Our
182 U.S.
States,
Dooley
View,
(1901);
v. United
1041
45 L.Ed.
155
13 Harv.L.Rev.
Third
sions—A
222,
762,
21
182 U.S.
S.Ct.
In United meet 757-758, 86 S.Ct. cided:
(1966), Court said: waiting-period requirement in the “The ... travel from District of Columbia Code right
“The occupies though it to another . . . also unconstitutional even one State Congress concept adopted by as an exercise of fundamental to the position power. pow- of federal right It that has federal In terms Union. is a our Federal er, created the one- repeatedly the discrimination firmly established Due requirement Proc- year violates recognized. corpse. to this otherwise moribund warmth the Insular Cases to rest. The afore- cadaver of Examining U.S., (See pages 2264). Board v. Flores de 599-602 of case of cited may very Otero, supra, given well have new
lili
originally
of the Fifth
As
envisioned H.R.
one of
ess
Amendment.
Clause
provisions
principal purposes
Fifth Amendment contains
the SSI
‘[WJhile
protection clause,
no
it
the establishment of “uniform treat-
equal
does forbid was
unjustifiable
recipients
under the
discrimination that is “so
Federal-State
ment
’
(id.,
program”
p. 4989),
assistance
process.”
public
to be violative
due
“nationally
requirements
we have stated in invali-
thus have
uniform
For the reasons
dating
Pennsylvania
eligibility
and Connecticut
for such
factors as the level and
provisions, the
resources
provi-
type
p.
District
Columbia
allowed.” Id.
4992. In
goal
sions is also invalid —the Due Process
with this
H.R.
consonance
included
(as
the Fifth
prohibits
Amendment
well as Guam and the Vir-
Clause
Islands)
public
gin
from
denying
program.
assistance
within
Id.
poor persons
pp.
eligible solely
However,
otherwise
5350.6
bene-
ground
they
jurisdictions
“adjusted
fits for these
have not been
were
on
per
the ratio of
capita
of the
income of
residents
Columbia
locales,
of these
per capita
each
year
applications
the time their
one
(394
Id.,
come
lowest of the
are filed.”
States.”
pp.
5349-5350.
page 1335).
S.Ct. at
misgivings expressed
There were
to H.R.
Considering
nature
the fundamental
by1
Congressmen.
several
travel,
a document
perceive
can
we
of no
entitled
Hugh
“Additional Views of Hon.
L.
the standards which restrictive
why
reason
Vanik,
Carey, Hon.
A.
Hon.
Charles
William
legislation
applicable
must meet are not
Green, and
J.
Hon. James C.
on
Corman
vigor
impingement upon
equal
(Id.,
5362-5367),
pp.
H.R. 1.”
following
from,
distinguished
travel
travel
statements were made:
Dulles, supra.
Kent v.
Zemel
State.
Cf.
“We are
Rusk,
provisions
concerned with
permit
which would
(1965). Furthermore,
states to
we
reinstitute
L.Ed.2d
requirements
up
residence
year.
view these
to one
principles
light
Population stability
by equal
is assured
application
Plaintiff of the sections of
opportunity
employment
question,
and for
vividly
the Statute
appar
*6
in need
aby
sys-
those
national welfare
provisions
that such
restricting,
ent
have
benefits,
paying
tem
adequate
inhibiting,
rather
chilling and penalizing effects
through
than
of
upon
establishment
inter-
Plaintiff’s
of a
exercise
fundamental
state barriers
mobility
poor
right,
and can
our
survive
exactly
in
way
Supreme
only if
scrutiny
gov
a compelling
there is
prohibited
Court
Shapiro
Thompson,
in
v.
ernmental
will justify
interest
that
such
Our search Puerto Rico and other insular areas. tal interest” within the legisla- Medusa-like change This evidenced in benefit tive history Public Law No. re- 92-603 level of four family from $636 proverbial $1,320. sembles the quest however, for the needle This figure, is consider- haystack. Con- ably U.S.Code below the minimum federal standard gressional News, $2,400. recognize and Administrative Vol. We this is an pp. 4989-5400. complicated question. involved We 2014(e) specifically Rico within the definition of the
6. Section H.R. included term Id., p. 5324. States.” “United eligible to be need.” found States relationship between recognize (Emphasis supplied). state Rico and in Puerto income level prob- presents assistance benefits public viewpoint, are to our reasons that For nego- has been problem that this lem and unclear, completely eliminated the Senate AND THE by the Administration tiated coverage, rele- from thus SSI those in government and Commonwealth the then exist- it to treatment under gating Health, Education Department of programs. ing Federal-State Welfare. §§ long that as remains problem The the Government asserts In its brief “[t]he York, Pennsylvania, such as New States extension factor and the effect cost Massachusetts, Ohio, a more etc. have the ra- Puerto Rico” as benefits to SSI benefits, there is an level of attractive It Congressional basis action. tional migrate to those areas incentive compelling discuss the issue of not does insular ar- and other the Commonwealth separately and we thus as- interest state is a unemployment when a time eas at its assertions as to considers sume origin and in in the area of both problem compelling basis and state interest rational this in of destination. With area closely take the substance akin. We to be mind, Department, which is undertak- argument to mean the Government’s program ing the administration apply benefits were to to resi- SSI areas and in the should be insular of Puerto Rico to the same extent as dents accept responsibility. a new prepared to those of the and the District of 50 States posi- should initiate such Department Columbia, pro- cost of the the total required improve as are programs tive higher, gram would be and that bene- through for employment opportunities residents, paid to Puerto Rican fits bring system training and about a better income, compared per capita to the local through programs work than of benefits effect have deleterious could in effect heretofore. has recipi- of Puerto Rican welfare character our any intent to state that It is ents.7 program designed impede such face accepting moving freely in Even these statements citizens from deter Rather, value, those we want we fail see how factors have employment. search presented by to make sure that a decision would be connection with the facts self-improve- grounds on the case. Here we have a United States made ment; pure due differen- economic who citizen resides one in welfare. receiving tial while there. starts receipt of these bene- qualifying His Secretary has pleased the We are Connecticut, and his continued fits while implement pro- therefore agreed, *7 same, bearing on receipt of the can have no the citizens of which would benefit grams may any added cost that be incurred and other insular areas as Puerto Rico to the residents of giving as the other citizens of the United benefits well all brief, intent, quotes Congressional the fol- it 7. In its the Government If this be evidence of is lowing indeed, when, made before the Senate particularly statements as is weak evidence (in hearing Finance on H.R. 1 on brief, Committee recognized the Government in its July August 95), held as apparent quoted readily state- from as is Congressional “principal evidence intent itself, inapplicable is to SSI statement ment coverage for removing Puerto Rico from this general. deals with H.R. 1 The but rather provision”: blind, to the granting benefits of increased fact, very high offi- “In a comment aged capacitated, and those over 65 in Puerto early year Rico this was that from Puerto cial hardly place of the Puerto Rico can 33.7% this, any part because not want ‘we do claiming position population in a Rican percent people you put of the in Puerto 33.7 benefits. welfare, category being eligible Rico people.” ruin the character of our it will
H13 Judgment The Clerk shall enter in ac- Rico, which is not at issue here. Puerto Opinion. cordance this Similarly, logical there can be no connection import such a situation and between McENTEE, (dissent- Judge Circuit Senior recipients. welfare Al- Rican ing). can be argued higher it though great I have encourage migra- respect benefits would While for the schol Stateside arly nature of the majority’s SSI, opinion and purpose qualifying for tion I am sympathetic policy while consid is there only proof an absence not reflects, erations I am unable to limita- reasoning geographic behind the agree the majority signifi as to the1 migra- discourage such internal is to tions legal principles cance at issue. Ac tion, if such were sub silentio ra- but cordingly, I must dissent. tionale, clearly impermissible it would be a Hospi- Memorial compelling state interest. view, my In what basically at issue County, supra, 415 Maricopa Congressional tal here is the decision that SSI 1076; 263-264, Shapiro v. are to be anyone unavailable to pages fifty located in one of supra, states or Thompson, District of Columbia. 42 et U.S.C. § 1322. issue, seq. This I consider to be the real above us to the forceful The leads right rather than a citizen’s to travel. that, case, the facts of this under conclusion unique relationship Given between compelling is a lack of such state there the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and justify Plaintiff’s penalizing interest Examining see Board v. right therefore conclude that to travel. We Otero, de Flores 1611(f) 1614(e) of the Section Section L.Ed.2d Ridge Fornaris v. applied are unconstitutional SSA Co., Tool Plaintiff. (1970),1 I do not believe that L.Ed.2d reaching this result we are not un- In required any par- to extend one that, if the possibility Social financial benefit those located aware ticular form, might While I well Security Act remains in its the Commonwealth.2 voted to extend SSI benefits to may opening the door to certain have we legislative had I been a member of the This is inevitable practices. undesirable branch, judge perceive as a I am unable to dealing type legislation, with this any mandate —constitutional or otherwise— course, presume we can not must be done. large actions will be those of ma- such event, citizens. such con- jority of on majority’s argument As for the based tingencies proper subject of correc- travel, simply I would state regulatory endeavor and legislative and tive I have found no case which extends the of the issues Shapiro Thompson, not be determinative should rationale of (1969)3 presented. here seq.; always disadvantage. 731 et to the island’s § 1. See also Caribtow work OSHRC, (1st 1974) Corp. area, F.2d 1064 Cir. example, In the tax Puerto Rico is the generally Passalacqua, See cases cited. de beneficiary quite legislative of certain favorable and Political Status of The Constitutional See, g., provisions. §§ e. 26 U.S.C. of Puerto 10 Rev. de Derecho Puer Island Hector, Colony Puerto Rico: or Com- also (1970); Leibowitz, torriqueño Applica monwealth?, 6 L. Pol. N.Y.U.J.Int’l & bility Federal Law to the Commonwealth nn.110 & & *8 Rico, (1967); Magruder, 56 Geo.L.J. 219 Maricopa Hospital See also Memorial 3. Status of Puerto The Commonwealth nn.7-8, County, 254-55 & (1953). U.Pitt.L.Rev. (1974); United Guest, historically. Nor in fact has done so Comment, Leibowitz, supra generally A note at 269-70. L.Ed.2d 239 See Travel, Scrutiny Right U.C.L. Strict unicity of Puerto It be noted should relationship A.L.Rev. to the United States does Rico’s or two more than between travel other District Columbia. fifty States that the status I do not believe
And relationship between Puerto complex constitutes an the United States judicial extension predicate for
adequate the instant case. rationale to
of that very case raises im- recognize that this
I issues, deeply impressed I am
portant majority cogency with which
by the position. Nevertheless, for its
articulates stated, I am unable subscribe reasons views, respectfully and I dissent.
to their HARDIN, Jr., and Edwin B.
Alan G.
Pate, al., Plaintiffs, et
.v PUBLISH HOUSTON CHRONICLE al., et Defendants.
ING COMPANY A. 74-H-643.
Civ. No. Court, States District Texas,
D.S.
Houston Division. 14, 1977.
Feb. Jr., Tex., Schleider, Houston,
Ben H. plaintiffs.