News & Insights

Facts:

This case addressed whether Congress can impose specific residency and immigration status conditions for aliens to qualify for federal welfare benefits, specifically Medicare Part B supplemental medical insurance. The relevant statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395o(2)(B), made eligibility contingent on:

• Being lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
• Having resided in the United States continuously for at least five years.

Three resident aliens, including Diaz and Clara (Cuban refugees), and Espinosa (a lawful permanent resident for fewer than five years), challenged the constitutionality of these requirements under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The District Court invalidated the five-year residency requirement, finding it discriminatory and unconstitutional, and deemed the alien eligibility provisions unenforceable.

Analysis:

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision, emphasizing Congress’s broad discretion in regulating aliens and distinguishing citizens from non-citizens in federal benefit programs. Key considerations included:

• Broad Congressional Authority: The Court highlighted Congress’s plenary power to enact immigration laws and set conditions for aliens’ participation in federal programs. Such authority enables Congress to draw lines between aliens and citizens and among classes of aliens based on their ties to the United States.
• Policy Choices and Judicial Deference: The Court noted that the political branches require flexibility to address varying political, economic, and social circumstances. Judicial review of these classifications should be narrow, deferring to Congress’s policy judgments unless they are wholly irrational.
• Reasonableness of the Requirements: The Court upheld the five-year residency requirement, reasoning that it reflected a reasonable policy choice to grant benefits to aliens who had established a stronger affinity with the United States. While some aliens may face hardship from the rule, line-drawing is an inherent part of policy decisions and not inherently unconstitutional.
• Distinguishing Federal and State Standards: The Court clarified that federal classifications regarding aliens are evaluated differently from state-imposed classifications due to the unique constitutional role of the federal government in immigration matters.