Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has the Supreme Court ruled on Congress's power over DC or Puerto Rico statehood (include dates)?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court has not issued a decision that directly resolves whether Congress may admit the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico as states; instead the Court has decided narrower constitutional questions about Congress’s power over territories and representation. Key rulings include a 2021 decision rejecting a lawsuit that would have given D.C. a voting House seat through judicial action, the 2022 Vaello Madero decision affirming broad congressional authority under the Territory Clause for program eligibility in Puerto Rico, and earlier doctrines from the Insular Cases and cases like Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle [1] and Aurelius [2] that treat Puerto Rico as a territory subject to Congress’s plenary power [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. A courtroom dead end for D.C. voting claims — what the 2021 decision actually did and didn’t do
A Supreme Court decision in October 2021 rejected a novel legal theory advanced by Washington residents that sought a judicial order granting the District a voting representative in the House, affirming the lower court’s view that the Constitution’s text contemplates representation chosen from the several states and that D.C. residents do not live in a state for that purpose. That ruling did not say Congress lacks any power to change D.C.’s status, and it left open Congress’s legislative options, including admitting the District as a state or changing representation by statute; the holding was narrowly focused on the plaintiffs’ claim and the constitutional text as it relates to House membership, not on the broader question of Congress’s admission power or the political process for statehood [3] [4].
2. Vaello Madero (April 21, 2022) — a contemporary affirmation of congressional latitude over territories
In United States v. Vaello Madero, decided April 21, 2022, the Court reversed a lower-court ruling and sustained Congress’s authority to exclude Puerto Rico residents from Supplemental Security Income, grounding the decision in the Constitution’s Territory Clause and longstanding congressional practice. The opinion underscores that Congress possesses wide latitude in structuring federal programs as they apply to territories, applying rational-basis review to distinctions between states and territories. This ruling is not a direct endorsement of statehood or of any particular political outcome for Puerto Rico, but it is a clear signal that the Court views congressional policymaking for territories as constitutionally discretionary rather than constrained by equal-protection principles in the same way as for states [5].
3. The Insular Cases and the long shadow over territorial rights
The Court’s early-20th-century Insular Cases created the doctrine of territorial incorporation, distinguishing incorporated territories (on a path to statehood) from unincorporated territories, and permitting Congress to treat the latter differently for some constitutional purposes. Those cases have been repeatedly criticized for racist premises, and the Court has grappled with their legacy in later decisions. While the Insular Cases do not directly answer whether Congress can admit a territory as a state, their framework has shaped how justices and lower courts analyze the application of constitutional rights in places such as Puerto Rico and has left a contested jurisprudential foundation that figures into modern litigation about territorial entitlements and congressional power [6] [8].
4. Puerto Rico’s sovereignty cases — Sanchez Valle and Aurelius clarified limits on independence claims
A string of Supreme Court decisions has addressed Puerto Rico’s status in ways that constrain certain theories of autonomy. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle [1] and Financial Oversight and Management Board v. Aurelius [2] treated Puerto Rico as a territory under Congress’s plenary authority and rejected arguments that Puerto Rico is an independent sovereign outside Congress’s constitutional reach. Those rulings make clear that Puerto Rico’s ultimate political status—statehood, independence, or continued territorial status—remains a political question primarily for Congress and the Puerto Rican people, rather than one that federal courts will resolve by recognizing a separate sovereign status apart from Congress [7].
5. What’s left unresolved and where the political fights are happening
The Supreme Court’s decisions collectively clarify that courts will police constitutional text and doctrines but will not unilaterally create statehood or alter the political process for admission; statehood remains a congressional prerogative. Congress has considered multiple bills and proposals for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood and status referendums (including House passage of D.C. admission bills and proposals like the Puerto Rico Status Act), but legislative outcomes depend on politics, not direct Supreme Court authorization. The Court’s recent rulings provide context—affirming congressional latitude over territories and limiting judicially crafted remedies for representation—but they leave open the central political question: whether Congress will act to admit either jurisdiction as a state [9] [10] [11].