US DOJ tells court it does not oppose permanent injunction in oversight board removal case

The Department of Justice building in Washington, Oct. 29, 2025. The U.S. Department of Justice said it does not oppose converting a prior court ruling into a permanent injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s attempted removal of three members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, according to a filing submitted earlier this week in federal district court. (Eric Lee/The New York Times)

By THE STAR STAFF

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said it does not oppose converting a prior court ruling into a permanent injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s attempted removal of three members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, according to a filing submitted earlier this week in federal district court.

In the Monday filing, DOJ lawyers wrote that they “do not oppose converting the Court’s Opinion and Order dated October 3, 2025 … into a permanent injunction relating to the Plaintiffs’ removals in August 2025.” The DOJ added that it does not interpret the court’s earlier ruling as preventing “any future removals of Plaintiffs consistent with law.”

The district court’s 2025 opinion found that “Plaintiffs likely were not afforded the minimal requisite procedural protections of notice and an opportunity to respond before” they were removed — a conclusion that halted the removals while litigation continued.

The DOJ’s new position comes as the long‑running dispute returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico following a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Earlier this month, the appellate court ordered the case back to Judge María Antongiorgi Jordán for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 ruling that reaffirmed judicial review of certain presidential removals and underscored that officials protected by “for cause” language may be entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond.

That framework could be pivotal in the Puerto Rico case. The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) states only that “the President may remove any member of the Oversight Board only for cause,” without defining cause or specifying procedural requirements. The First Circuit’s remand directs the district court to evaluate whether the attempted removals met that standard and whether the plaintiffs’ due‑process rights were violated.

Former oversight board members Arthur J. González, Betty A. Rosa and Andrew G. Biggs sued in 2025 after Trump attempted to remove them, arguing that the action violated PROMESA and the Constitution. Judge Antongiorgi Jordán agreed at the preliminary‑injunction stage, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims.

The First Circuit’s Aug. 17 judgment — issued by Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Lara E. Montecalvo and Seth R. Aframe — granted an unopposed motion filed by federal defendants White House Personnel Director Sergio Gor and Trump. The panel ordered the matter “remanded to the district court for further proceedings” and directed that the mandate be issued immediately.

The DOJ has defended the president’s decision, saying the members were removed for “inefficiency, ineffectiveness, neglect, and failure,” citing what it described as the oversight board’s inability 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 … [and] over $250 million in consultant and law‑firm fees into PREPA’s bankruptcy proceedings,” the DOJ wrote.

With the case now back before the district court, both sides are expected to file supplemental briefs addressing how Trump v. Cook affects the legality of the 2025 removal attempts and the scope of PROMESA’s “for cause” requirement.