Harris v. Rosario

446 U.S. 651, 100 S. Ct. 1929, 64 L. Ed. 2d 587, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 106
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedAugust 11, 1980
Docket79-1294
StatusPublished
Cited by100 cases

This text of 446 U.S. 651 (Harris v. Rosario) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651, 100 S. Ct. 1929, 64 L. Ed. 2d 587, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 106 (1980).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., provides federal financial assistance to States and Territories to aid families with needy dependent children. Puerto Rico receives less assistance than do the States, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1308 (a)(1), 1396d (b) (1976 ed. and Supp. II). Appellees, AFDC recipients residing in Puerto Rico, filed this class action against the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Secretary of Health and Human Services) in March 1977 in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; they challenged the constitutionality of 42 U. S. C. §§ 1308 and 1396d (b), claiming successfully that the lower level of AFDC reimbursement provided to Puerto Rico violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.

We disagree. Congress, which is empowered under the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States,” may treat Puerto Rico differently from States so long as there is a [652]*652rational basis for its actions. In Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) (per curiam) , we concluded that a similar statutory-classification was rationally grounded on three factors: Puerto Rican residents do not contribute to the federal treasury; the cost of treating Puerto Rico as a State under the statute would be high; and greater benefits could disrupt the Puerto Rican economy. These same considerations are forwarded here in support of §§ 1308 and 1396d (b), Juris. Statement 12-14,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

El Pueblo De Puerto Rico v. Christopher Vázquez
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Puerto Rico/Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico, 2025
Dalmau Ramírez y otros v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico y otros
2024 TSPR 95 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2024)
United States v. Montijo-Maysonet
974 F.3d 34 (First Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Cotto-Flores
970 F.3d 17 (First Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Vaello-Madero
956 F.3d 12 (First Circuit, 2020)
Peña Martínez v. Azar
376 F. Supp. 3d 191 (U.S. District Court, 2019)
United States v. Rios-Rivera
913 F.3d 38 (First Circuit, 2019)
Hill v. United States Parole Commission
District of Columbia, 2017
United States v. Mercado-Flores
312 F. Supp. 3d 249 (U.S. District Court, 2015)
United States v. Farmer
26 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D. Puerto Rico, 2014)
Consejo De Salud Playa De Ponce v. Rullan
586 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D. Puerto Rico, 2008)
United States v. Pollard
Third Circuit, 2003
United States v. Camille Pollard
326 F.3d 397 (Third Circuit, 2003)
Mundo-Rios v. Vizcarrondo-Irizarry
228 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D. Puerto Rico, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 U.S. 651, 100 S. Ct. 1929, 64 L. Ed. 2d 587, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-rosario-scotus-1980.