Dispute over removal of fiscal board members returns to court this week
- The San Juan Daily Star
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
By THE STAR STAFF
The dispute over President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove three members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board returns this week to federal district court, where a judge will reconsider the case under a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential removal authority.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sent the case back earlier this month after the Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Cook, issuing a 5-4 ruling that kept Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in office while her challenge to Trump’s attempted removal continues.
The First Circuit’s remand means the parties must return to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and address whether the attempted removals satisfy the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act’s (PROMESA) “for cause” requirement and whether the ousted members were entitled to procedural protections before being removed.
In an Aug. 17 judgment, a panel made up of Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Lara E. Montecalvo and Seth R. Aframe granted an unopposed motion filed by federal defendants Sergio Gor, the White House personnel director, and Trump. The court ordered the matter “remanded to the district court for further proceedings” and directed that the mandate be issued immediately.
The judgment followed a July 1 order in which the First Circuit reopened the appeal after months on hold and directed the parties to explain how the case should proceed in light of Cook. That Supreme Court decision clarified that courts may review at least some presidential removals of officials protected by “for cause” language and that certain officials must receive notice and an opportunity to respond before removal.
That framework could be decisive in the Puerto Rico case because PROMESA says only that “the President may remove any member of the Oversight Board only for cause.” The statute does not define cause, list specific grounds for removal, or expressly require notice or a hearing.
Former fiscal board members Arthur J. González, Betty A. Rosa and Andrew G. Biggs sued in 2025 after Trump attempted to remove them. They argued that the removals violated PROMESA and their due-process rights. Judge María Antongiorgi Jordán agreed at the preliminary-injunction stage, blocking federal officials from carrying out the removals while the litigation continued.
The Justice Department has defended the president’s action, saying the members were removed for “inefficiency, ineffectiveness, neglect, and failure.” Government lawyers cited what they characterized as the board’s failure to resolve Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis and alleged mismanagement of public funds.
“Bodies under Plaintiffs’ supervision have lavished funds on law firms, advertisers, and consultants … roughly $2 billion in professional ‘advising’ fees … over $250 million in consultant and law-firm fees into PREPA’s bankruptcy proceedings,” DOJ wrote.
The government has also argued that the president’s judgment is not reviewable, that public office is not a protected property interest, and that PROMESA does not contain procedural protections such as notice or a hearing.
The ousted members counter that the statute’s “for cause” language would be meaningless if the president could remove board members without explanation, evidence or an opportunity to respond. They are expected to argue that the Cook case reinforces the need for judicial review and basic procedural safeguards.
For now, the First Circuit has left those questions for the district court. The case returns to Judge Antongiorgi Jordán, who must decide whether the attempted removals can stand under PROMESA and the Supreme Court’s clarified approach to presidential removal authority.
Comments