By Lawrence Hurley

TOA ALTA, Puerto Rico (Reuters) – Emanuel Rivera Fuentes, severely disabled since birth and lying in bed at the home he shares with his parents in Puerto Rico, recites a list of 14 medications he must take daily for medical conditions including cerebral palsy.

These drugs are only one part of his care. The rest falls on Gladys Fuentes Lozada (Abraham Rivera Berrios) and Gladys Fuentes Lozada (Gladys Fuentes Lozada), who adopted him in the last weeks of his life.

Rivera Fuentes is now 35 and lives in a small teal-colored room in their Toa Alta home. This town lies about twenty miles (32km) west of San Juan, which is the U.S. Caribbean territory capital. Rivera Fuentes is unable to walk, and requires assistance with basic tasks.

Because he’s a Puerto Rican citizen, and not the U.S. mainland resident, he cannot get a monthly federal benefit that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. His family and he argue this is illegal and hope the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rectify it.

It is a question of whether the U.S. Congress unlawfully denied Puerto Rico the Supplemental Social Income (SSI). Nine justices are due to present arguments in the case, which will be heard on November 9.

Rivera Berrios, 70 years old, stated in Spanish that “it’s discrimination.” His son, who was sitting on his bed and listening, had a cross of the Christian faith attached with safety pins next to his pillow. We are American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. We don’t receive it. This is discrimination.

This is discrimination. The family sued the U.S. Social Security Administration to get access to the SSI benefits.

Their lawsuit is on hold while the Supreme Court considers the matter in a similar case https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-puertorico/u-s-supreme-court-to-examine-puerto-ricos-exclusion-from-benefits-program-idUSKCN2AT320 pursued by another Puerto Rico resident, Jose Luis Vaello Madero, who received SSI benefits when he lived in New York but lost eligibility when he moved to the territory in 2013.

According to the federal government, more than 300,000. Puerto Rico residents may be eligible. The benefit is available at $2 billion per year.

Puerto Rico has a high level of poverty. In recent years, Puerto Rico’s 3,000,000 residents have been hit hard by a severe financial crisis in 2017, Hurricane Maria in 2017, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Many residents have voiced their disapproval at the U.S. government’s treatment of them. The politics of Puerto Rico are split between those who wish to keep it a semi-independent country, those who favor U.S. independence and those who would prefer U.S. status.

Since a series known as the “Insular Cases” that began more than 100 years ago, the Supreme Court has played a significant role in the legal status determination of Puerto Ricans. Some of these rulings were suffused by racist language. Insular Cases were a series of rulings that supported the belief that U.S. citizens could be given different treatment for people who have recently acquired territories.

This case will give the justices the opportunity to reverse or overturn the Insular Cases.

In an interview, Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rico’s pro statehood governor) stated that “the court should acknowledge that the underlying premises of these cases were basically racist.”

In Puerto Rico the Insular cases are treated in the same light that many past Supreme Court rulings, such as Plessy (1996) which upheld segregation of races and Korematsu (1944), which permitted internment for Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Both rulings were later discredited by the court.

‘UNCIVILIZED RACE’

The Insular Cases helped delineate the rights for the newly acquired territory, previously a Spanish colony. These cases established that Puerto Ricans living in U.S. territories and Puerto Ricans do not have the same rights under the Constitution as Americans living in U.S. States. Although they can vote in federal elections, Congress granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship.

The 1901 Supreme Court case Downes-v. Bidwell contained an opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown. Brown was five years prior to the Plessy/V. Ferguson ruling which endorsed “separate, but equal” racial discrimination. Brown referred specifically to “territories inhabited by alien race” that it may not be possible for them to govern based upon “AngloSaxon principles.”

Justice Edward Douglass White, a fellow justice, supported the idea that the United States could seize an “unknown island” that is populated with an “uncivilized race without conferring citizenship. This language was not compatible with the way that the United States has historically approached territories and rights. Usually, these were led by white settlers who eventually became states.

Although some justices have made a mockery of the Insular Cases throughout the years, they were never explicitly rejected by the court.

With a conservative majority of 6-3, the court could resolve this case and ignore previous rulings. Vaello Madero’s attorneys have stated that a decision against Vaello Madero would confirm the Insular Cases “foundational principle.”

The administration of President Joe Biden does not specifically rely on Insular Cases to defend the SSI exemption. They instead cite earlier rulings based in Puerto Rico’s “unique fiscal status”, which exempts its residents from federal income tax.

It is an argument that some Puerto Ricans, including the governor, have said is inconsistent with Biden’s June statement https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/biden-follows-trump-defending-puerto-rico-benefits-exclusion-2021-06-07 defending his administration’s decision to pursue the case while also asking Congress to extend benefits like SSI to Puerto Rico.

Biden claimed that “there can not be any second-class citizens” in the United States of America.

Danielle Blevins of the Justice Department stated that Biden’s stand and the department’s legal arguments, which she claimed were fulfilling “its traditional duty to defend Congress’ laws,” are not in conflict.

Emanuel Rivera Fuentes parents struggle to pay their bills while trying to obtain SSI benefits for equipment, including a ramp or a wheelchair. They feel that the SSI exclusion is a message to them that they don’t belong in America.

“You feel unprotected,” Rivera Berrios said. You get frustrated and annoyed if you do not have your rights. It causes you to lose faith in the government. It feels like you are being betrayed.”