The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in the case to decide whether the appointment of the members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because they were not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, according to an analysis of the oral argument by ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle. In the worst case, the nation’s high court could hand down a ruling that vaporizes three years of work toward restructuring Puerto Rico’s debt. However, the justices’ grasp of the practical aspects of the case suggest that they will at least give the Senate and the President a chance to resurrect the Oversight Board’s work. In the best case, the Supreme Court will reverse the First Circuit and hold that the Board members did not require Senate confirmation, thus validating the steps already taken to adjust the debt of the island commonwealth. In the 80 minutes of oral argument, the justices continually focused on the precedential effects of the opinion they would issue. They clearly understood that invaliding the Oversight Board could mean that the governments of territories and even the District of Columbia had been formed in contravention of the Constitution. Click here to read the RDW analysis
For more on the case, including a full transcript of the oral argument, petitions, briefs and further insight from ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle, please click here.
