[22-96] Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Jan 11, 2023.
Decided on May 11, 2023.

Petitioner: Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.
Respondent: Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc..

Advocates:

• Mark D. Harris (for the Petitioner)
• Aimee W. Brown (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting vacatur)
• Sarah M. Harris (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

The Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (“CPI”) is a nonprofit media organization based in Puerto Rico. It seeks disclosure of documents relating to Puerto Rico’s fiscal situation from the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (“the Board”). The Board has declined to release the requested documents, and CPI asked the district court to compel production. The Board asked the district court to dismiss the litigation, arguing that it is immune from suit pursuant to both the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”).

The district court disagreed with the Board, finding PROMESA abrogated any possible Eleventh Amendment immunity the Board might have enjoyed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims?

Conclusion

Nothing in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico enjoys from legal claims. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court.

If Congress wishes to abrogate sovereign immunity, it must do so using “unmistakably clear” language in the statute. The Supreme Court has found such language only in two types of situations: when a statute expressly states that it is stripping immunity from a sovereign entity, and when a statute creates a cause of action and authorizes a lawsuit against a government based on that cause of action. There is no such language in PROMESA, nor does it create a cause of action for use against the Board or Puerto Rico. Even § 2126(a)—which provides that “any action against the Oversight Board, and any action otherwise arising out of [PROMESA] . . . shall be brought” in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico—does not amount to a clear intent to abrogate sovereign immunity.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that Puerto Rico lacks state sovereign immunity, which would make the question of abrogation superfluous.