Podcasts about vaello madero

The Insular Cases are SCOTUS cases regarding rights of people in U.S. territories. They're considered U.S. citizens from birth, but they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation as citizens who live in one of the 50 states. Research: Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/243/ Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sanford Ballard Dole". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sanford-Ballard-Dole. Accessed 31 July 2023. Carstensen, Vernon. “The Constitutional and Territorial Expansion.” https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND88053401/pdf DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/1/ Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/222/ Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/151/ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/ Erman, Sam. “Meanings of Citizenship in the U.S. Empire: Puerto Rico, Isabel Gonzalez, and the Supreme Court, 1898 to 1905.” Journal of American Ethnic History Summer 2008 Volume 27, Number 4. Fiol-Matta, Lía. “Future of the Insular Cases.” Latino Justice. https://www.latinojustice.org/en/latinojusticeopina/future-insular-cases Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/176/ Gelpí, Gustavo A. “The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawai‘i, and the Philippines.” The Federal Lawyer | March/April 2011. Gershon, Livia. “The Myth of Manifest Destiny.” JSTOR Daily. 5/5/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/the-myth-of-manifest-destiny/ Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/221/ Howe, Amy. “Court declines to take up petition seeking to overturn Insular Cases.” SCOTUS Blog. 10/17/2022. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/court-declines-to-take-up-petition-seeking-to-overturn-insular-cases/ Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/392/ National Archives. “Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803).” https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/louisiana-purchase-treaty#no-1 Perez, Lisa Maria. “Citizenship Denied: The ‘Insular Cases' and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Virginia Law Review , Jun., 2008, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Jun., 2008). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470577 Ponsa-Kraus, Christina. “The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.” Yale Law Journal. Vol. 131, No. 8. June 2022. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-insular-cases-run-amok Sparrow, Bartholomew H. "Insular Cases." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by David S. Tanenhaus, vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 476-481. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3241200487/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=91c70605. Accessed 25 July 2023. Supreme Court of the United States. “UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO.” Argued November 9, 2021—Decided April 21, 2022. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf Topol, Sarah A., and Glenna Gordon. "The America That Americans Forget." The New York Times Magazine, 9 July 2023, p. 22(L). Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A756508304/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=9e9434c8. Accessed 25 July 2023. Torruella, Juan R. “Ruling America's Colonies: The Insular Cases” Yale Law & Policy Review. 32:57. 2013. Torruella, Juan R. “The Insular Cases: The Establishment of a Regime of Political Apartheid.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law. Winter 2007. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol29/iss2/1/ S. Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs. “Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations.” https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes S. State Department Office of the Historian. “Louisiana Purchase, 1803 .” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase. Wallach, Sherry Levin. “The Insular Cases Must Be Overturned.” Bloomberg Law. 8/3/2022. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-insular-cases-must-be-overturned Yale Law School. “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Justice Gorsuch, Concurring (Insular Cases)   Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Majority Opinion (Puerto Rico, SSI Benefits)   Next episode, I'll be reading Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in this case.    Music by Epidemic Sound

We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero).

Support the show

Con la participación de: Dr. Efrén Rivera Ramos

In this ruling from just last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Ricans are not entitled to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment because … unclear. Citizens who live in DC and the Northern Mariana Islands? Yes - equal citizens under the law. Puerto Ricans and Guamamians? Sorry, no, try again next century.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Brown v Davenport, (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case concerned whether habeas relief may be granted if the Brecht v Abrahamson test alone is satisfied, or if the application of Chapman v California by the state courts was unreasonable because of AEDPA. The court held that federal courts can not grant habeas relief when state courts have already ruled on a prisoner's claim, unless the situation satisfies the test laid out in Brecht v Abrahamson, and the test laid out in AEDPA. Background In 2008, Ervine Davenport was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction was challenged because during his trial he had been placed in shackles. His wrists, waist, and ankles were all restrained, but there was a curtain to prevent the jury from seeing the shackles. The state said that although the shackles were unconstitutional, they did not affect the jury's verdict. Michigan's Court of Appeals agreed with the state. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, however, after several jurors testified that they had seen the shackles or heard comments about them, and then sent the case back to the lower courts. The lower court again determined that the shackles did not affect the verdict, and the appellate court agreed with the state once again, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied an appeal. Davenport then challenged his conviction in the federal courts. The district court refused to hear the case. He then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which agreed to hear the case. This appeals court cited the Deck v Missouri decision, and quoted from Holbrook v Flynn: "shackling is inherently prejudicial". The court found that the state had not met the burden of proof necessary to show that the jury was not influenced by the shackling, and provided habeas relief. The state attempted to have the decision stayed, but the court declined. … United States v Vaello Madero, (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Background. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program is a benefit for older or impaired citizens that are unable to take care of themselves. As established by Congress, the benefits are available to all citizens of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but does not cover residents of the other United States territories, including Puerto Rico. Jose Luis Vaello Madero was a recipient of SSI benefits while living in New York, and then moved to Puetro Rico in 2013. He continued to receive SSI benefits, but eventually the government discovered his new residence, terminated the SSI benefits and sought to recover approximately $28,000 he had improperly received while in Puetro Rico. A federal district judge and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that this exclusion violated the equal protection principle of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's due process clause, which was first established in Bolling v Sharpe.

#SSI #puertorico #tribunalsupremo La licenciada Isabel Abislaiman conversa con Bonita Radio sobre las implicaciones que tiene que se le niegue a los puertorriqueños residentes en la Isla el ingreso suplementario del Seguro Social para sobre 300k personas que cualificarían para ello. (La entrevista se dio antes de que el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos resolviera la controversia del caso de Vaello Madero, resolviendo que la no otorgación del beneficio no violenta la cláusula de igual protección de las leyes. Se ampararon en decisiones anteriores). Sintoniza y comparte

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! #SSI #puertorico #tribunalsupremo La licenciada Isabel Abislaiman conversa con Bonita Radio sobre las implicaciones que tiene que se le niegue a los puertorriqueños residentes en la Isla el ingreso suplementario del Seguro Social para sobre 300k personas que cualificarían para ello. (La entrevista se dio antes de que el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos resolviera la controversia del caso de Vaello Madero, resolviendo que la no otorgación del beneficio no violenta la cláusula de igual protección de las leyes. Se ampararon en decisiones anteriores). Sintoniza y comparteEscucha este episodio completo y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo de Bonita Radio. Descubre antes que nadie los nuevos episodios, y participa en la comunidad exclusiva de oyentes en https://go.ivoox.com/sq/90599

Conversamos con el licenciado y profesor Rafael Cox Alomar sobre la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en el caso Vaello-Madero. Dale ▶️ a este episodio del Podcast de Microjuris.

El profesor Efrén Rivera Ramos, de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, analiza la opinión reciente del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos de Vaello Madero sobre la accesibilidad de fondos para el programa federal SSI en Puerto Rico. ___ Reflexiones y entrevistas por un panel de profesores e investigadores en Hilando Fino: Desde las Ciencias Sociales. Un programa de análisis profundo sobre la actualidad política, económica, social y cultural, el acontecer comunitario, nacional e internacional. Hilando Fino es transmitido todos los martes a las 4:00 p.m. por el 89.7 FM en San Juan, el 88.3 FM en Mayagüez y por radiouniversidad.pr.

This episode is a “Sidebar,” which is our term for an episode that is off the timeline of the History of the Americans. This episode centers on a concurring opinion delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a case handed down by the United States Supreme Court only a few days ago, on April 21, 2022. The case, United States vs. Vaello Madero, addresses a pretty unexciting question to most of us -- whether the Constitution requires Congress to extend Supplemental Security Income benefits to residents of Puerto Rico to the same extent it makes those benefits available to the residents of the States. That is not the interesting part. Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion is, however, very interesting, an eloquent re-telling of the history of a series of cases -- the "Insular Cases" -- handed down in the years following the Spanish-American war, the moment in which the United States started dabbling in the European habit of true empire building. The Insular Cases are both an analytical mess and remain on the books as bad law today, as Justice Gorsuch compellingly argues. Enjoy! Selected references for this episode United States v. Vaello Madero Daniel Immerwahr, How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Insular Cases (Wikipedia) Plessy v. Ferguson (Wikipedia) "Breaker Morant," epitaph scene

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera, Christian Sobrino entrevista al Lcdo. Leo Aldridge sobre sus diferentes roles en la vida "pública" de Puerto Rico. Leo es un periodista que se tornó en abogado criminalista en Puerto Rico y Nueva York. Igualmente funge como panelista / comentarista en Jugando Pelota Dura y columnista en El Nuevo Día. En la conversación se habla del sistema penal de Puerto Rico, la decisión reciente del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos en U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, las dinámicas 'wacky' en la discusión política en la televisión, sus intereses temáticos como columnista, entre otros temas.Aquí le proveemos enlaces a algunas de las columnas de Leo que discutimos en el episodio:- "Mejor hablar de justicia que de ley y orden"- "Cinderella, El Rey, Lady Magnética y la Violinista"- "Yadier Molina, en la gloria y en la historia"- "Talento, disciplina y los casos de corrupción en Cataño y Guaynabo"Por favor suscribirse a La Trinchera con Christian Sobrino en su plataforma favorita de podcasts y compartan este episodio con sus amistades.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovich"Los inocentes existen solamente hasta el momento que se hacen infractores. Ser culpable o inocente es una cuestión de tiempo." - Rico en la película Judge Dredd de 1995

This week's episode covers the age-old battle of LAWS v. CONSTITUTION.  The first case is U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, in which the Supreme Court held that denying Puerto Rican residents SSI benefits did not violate Equal Protection.  The second case is City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, in which the Supreme Court tied the First Amendment in knots trying to resolve sign problems.  Law starts at (02:04).

Conversamos con el Lcdo. Rafael Antonio Ruiz Ayala sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en United States v. Vaello Madero, mediante la cual el tribunal resolvió que la exclusión de los residentes de Puerto Rico del programa del seguro social suplementario no viola la Constitución estadounidense. Radio Independencia Página oficial - radioindependencia.net Patreon - patreon.com/radioindependencia Facebook - facebook.com/radioindependenciapr/ Twitter - RadioIndePR Instagram - radio_independencia Snapchat - radioindepr YouTube - Radio Independencia Música del Podcast Canción: Something Elated Artista: Broke for Free Licencia de Creative Commons: Attribution *Con Andrés González Berdecía y Adriana Gutiérrez Colón

The U.S. Constitution's Territory Clause states that Congress may “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” In exercising its broad authority, Congress has maintained different federal tax and benefits programs for residents of the Territories than for residents of the states. For example, residents of Puerto Rico are typically exempt from most federal income, gift, estate, and excise taxes but not every federal benefits program extends to residents of Puerto Rico. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applies only to residents of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 42 U. S. C. 1382c(a)(1)(B)(i). Madero received SSI benefits while a resident of New York. He moved to Puerto Rico, where he was no longer eligible to receive those benefits. Unaware of Madero's new residence, the government continued to pay him SSI benefits but eventually sued to recover more than $28,000. Madero argued that Congress's exclusion of residents of Puerto Rico from the SSI program violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The district court and the First Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court reversed. The Constitution does not require Congress to extend SSI benefits to residents of Puerto Rico. The Court applied the deferential rational-basis test. Congress's decision to exempt Puerto Rico's residents from most federal income, gift, estate, and excise taxes supplies a rational basis for distinguishing residents of Puerto Rico from residents of the states for purposes of the SSI benefits program. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Juan Perla is a partner at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP in New York City. His practice focuses on appellate work and international dispute resolution. He is a graduate of Andrews University (BA, 2003), University of Southern California (MPA, 2006), and the University of California Berkeley School of Law (JD, 2012). He served as a law clerk for the Honorable C. Darnell Jones II on the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Honorable Luis Felipe Restrepo on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Learn more about the United States v. Vaello-Madero case pending before the Supreme Court.Connect with Juan on LinkedIn. Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPodAnd on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media https://www.runanddrummedia.comOur Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

This week's episode covers U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case which asks whether excluding residents of Puerto Rico from receiving federal benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause.  The answer is cut-and-dry, but not for the reasons you think.  Law starts at (06:02).

Un programa especial con estudiantes que forman parte del programa Pro Bono Amicus Justitiae de la Escuela de Derecho de la UPR. Carla M. Pérez Meléndez y José Enrique Rivera Aparicio, estudiantes que colaboraron con los argumentos legales expuestos ante el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en el caso de U.S. v. Vaello Madero, explican la relevancia de este caso. Nos acompaña también la estudiante de derecho Natasha Ramos, quien ha estado colaborando en investigaciones sobre el tema junto a un grupo de profesores de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. ___ Reflexiones y entrevistas por un panel de profesores e investigadores en Hilando Fino: Desde las Ciencias Sociales. Un programa de análisis profundo sobre la actualidad política, económica, social y cultural, el acontecer comunitario, nacional e internacional. Hilando Fino es transmitido todos los martes a las 4:00 p.m. por el 89.7 FM en San Juan, el 88.3 FM en Mayagüez y por radiouniversidad.pr.

Part 1 - On November 9, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero. Emile Henderson III returns Analyze This with Neil Weare, founder and president of Equally American, to breakdown this equal-protection challenge and the relationship between the United States and its territories. For more information or to explore Equally American's “I am Jose” campaign: https://www.equalrightsnow.org/i_am_jose_stories.

Andrés explica lo que sucedió en la argumentación oral de United States v. Vaello-Madero, el caso sobre la exclusión de los residentes de Puerto Rico del beneficio del seguro social suplementario, ante la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. Radio Independencia Página oficial - radioindependencia.net Patreon - patreon.com/radioindependencia Facebook - facebook.com/radioindependenciapr/ Twitter - RadioIndePR Instagram - radio_independencia Snapchat - radioindepr YouTube - Radio Independencia Música del Podcast Canción: Something Elated Artista: Broke for Free Licencia de Creative Commons: Attribution *Con Andrés González Berdecía y Adriana Gutiérrez Colón

On this week's episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam's non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare and Ponsa-Kraus explain the case, recap its oral argument at the Supreme Court, and walk us through the history of how Puerto Rico and its residents have been treated under the Constitution and by the U.S. government. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

On this week's episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam's non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare and Ponsa-Kraus explain the case, recap its oral argument at the Supreme Court, and walk us through the history of how Puerto Rico and its residents have been treated under the Constitution and by the U.S. government. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income — a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind and disabled individuals — in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.DateProceedings and OrdersSep 04 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 9, 2020)Sep 11 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 9, 2020 to November 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 14 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 9, 2020.Oct 29 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Carlos Delgado Altieri, Mayor of the Municipality of Isabela, Puerto Rico filed.Nov 06 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Gregorio Igartua (11/17/2020) filed.Nov 09 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Plaintiffs in Peña Martínez v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed.Nov 09 2020 | Response to petition from respondent Jose Luis Vaello-Madero filed.Nov 09 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Virgin Islands Bar Association filed.Nov 09 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed.Nov 24 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.Nov 24 2020 | Reply of petitioner United States of America filed. (Distributed)Jan 04 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 11 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.Jan 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.Feb 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.Feb 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Mar 01 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Mar 17 2021 | Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Mar 22 2021 | Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 1, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2021.May 27 2021 | Motion for a further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.May 28 2021 | Letter of supplement to request for further extension of time filed.May 28 2021 | Motion for a further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including June 7, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including August 30, 2021.Jun 07 2021 | Brief of petitioner United States of America filed.Jun 07 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed.)Jun 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Interamerican Institute for Constitutional Rights in support of neither party filed.Jun 14 2021 | Informative of Gregorio Igartua not accepted for filing. (July 23, 2021 - not type of document to be submitted electronically).Aug 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Plaintiff in Ruiz-Aviles v. SSA, et al. filed.Aug 30 2021 | Brief of respondent Jose Luis Vaello-Madero filed.Aug 31 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, United States of AmericaSep 02 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Jose Luis Vaello-MaderoSep 02 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed.Sep 03 2021 | Brief amici curiae of AARP, AARP Foundation, Justice in Aging, National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives filed.Sep 03 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), et al., filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Plaintiffs in Peña Martínez v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Pierluisi and the New Progressive Party filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The District of Columbia, Guam, and 16 other states and territories. filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of University of Puerto Rico Amicus Justitiae Probono Project filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, et al. filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Disability Rights Network, et al. filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Hon. Jenniffer A. Gonzalez Colon, Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Products Association of Puerto Rico filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Senate of Puerto Rico filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of League of United Latin American Citizens filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Diálogo Por Puerto Rico filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, et al. filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Public Benefits Scholars filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Virgin Islands Bar Association filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Puerto Rico House of Representatives filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Members of the Congressional Shadow Delegation of Puerto Rico filed. (Distributed)Sep 08 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, November 9, 2021.Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDSep 29 2021 | Reply of petitioner United States of America filed. (Distributed)Oct 22 2021 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by Gregorio Igartua.Nov 08 2021 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by Gregorio Igartua DENIED.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In today's update, Joel breaks down the major issues facing the Supreme Court this week. In Ramirez v. Collier, the Court debates whether a prisoner facing capital punishment can have a spiritual adviser present during the time of execution. In United States v. Vaello-Madero, the Court discussed Puerto Rico's ability to receive Supplemental Security Income payments. Lastly, Joel reviews the missteps in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

November 9, 2021 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Conversamos con la licenciada Isabel Abislaiman - abogada de una familia en Puerto Rico que cuestiona el discrimen por no recibir el seguro social suplementario - sobre la vista de hoy ante el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos que incoa Vaello Madero sobre la misma controversia. Confirmado Omar Marrero a dos semanas de que se pudiera de acuerdo con el Legislativo sobre la Ley que habilitaría el Plan de Ajuste de la Deuda ¡Sintoniza y comparte!Escucha este episodio completo y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo de Bonita Radio. Descubre antes que nadie los nuevos episodios, y participa en la comunidad exclusiva de oyentes en https://go.ivoox.com/sq/90599

United States v. Vaello-Madero | 11/09/21 | Docket #: 20-303

Conversamos con la licenciada Isabel Abislaiman - abogada de una familia en Puerto Rico que cuestiona el discrimen por no recibir el seguro social suplementario - sobre la vista de hoy ante el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos que incoa Vaello Madero sobre la misma controversia. Confirmado Omar Marrero a dos semanas de que se pudiera de acuerdo con el Legislativo sobre la Ley que habilitaría el Plan de Ajuste de la Deuda ¡Sintoniza y comparte!

United States v. Vaello-Madero

Resumen argumentos de Vaello-Madero ante Supremo federal... https://aldia.microjuris.com/2021/09/01/resumen-argumentos-de-vaello-madero-ante-supremo-federal/ Poderes del Congreso sobre los territorios versus el derecho individual ¿Cómo funciona SCOTUS? ¿Por dónde va cada juez en este caso? El Ejecutivo parece estar de acuerdo con la extensión del pago de SSI a Vaello Madera, pero no a conceder el poder del Congreso sobre los territorios El argumento de que PR no paga impuestos federales El resultado se sabrá el año que viene MInutos en la Historia: El año que Puerto Rico invadió a Santo Domingo

A case in which the Court will decide whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income—a program that provides benefits to low-income people aged 65 or older who have disabilities—in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.

Kate speaks with Juan Perla and Neil Weare about United States v. Vaello-Madero, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on November 9th. US citizens who are otherwise eligible for SSI benefits are denied solely because they live in Puerto Rico-- a US territory. Does this denial violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Part 1 - On Tuesday, November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court with hear oral arguments in United States v. Vaello-Madero. Host Emile Henderson III and Neil Weare, a civil rights attorney and president and founder of Equally American, discuss this pivotal case and the prolonged discrimination against 3.5 million American citizens who reside in the U.S. territories. To engage with Equally American or participate in their survey: https://www.equalrightsnow.org/people. Former ADA Coordinator Jamila A. Russell then joins Emile in the studio to discuss developmental disabilities and the various resources and protections available in the territory (41:13).

Transcripts and Resources available at: https://disabilityrightstoday.org/episodes/episode-4/ Case Summaries (1) CVS v. Doe concerning whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—and by extension Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—provides a disparate-impact cause of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination. (2) Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller addresses whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the statutes that incorporate its remedies for victims of discrimination, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act, include compensation for emotional distress. (3) United States v. Vaello-Madero. The question before the court is whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment by establishing the Supplemental Security Income program in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico. Our distinguished guests for this episode are Arlene Mayerson J.D. (Directing Attorney Emerita and Of Counsel, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)), Victoria Rodriguez Roldan, J.D. (Senior Policy Manager, AIDS United), and Claudia Center, J.D. (Legal Director DREDF). Our host is Dr. Peter Blanck, J.D., Ph.D., University Professor and Chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University. Key Words: Fifth Amendment, Supplemental Security Income, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Affordable Care Act, Disability Discrimination, Civil Rights Act of 1964

Subscribe on Patreon and hear the full episode here: www.patreon.com/posts/52502011 (Teaser) We discuss an absurd new policy advanced at this year's G7 meeting to "Build Back Better World" and counter China's belt and road initiative. Then we discuss new updates in the Biden administration's forthcoming Supreme Court case US v. Vaello-Madero, where the administration will seek to make clear that people in Puerto Rico and other territories aren't owed the same social welfare programs as residents of states. Runtime 1:11:45, 14 June 2021