A Puerto Rico union said that it would seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the union’s challenge to the Puerto Rico Oversight Board’s decisions.
The union, the Unión de Trabajadores de la Industria Eléctrica y Riego, a bond insurer, and a hedge fund filed three different suits using similar arguments. They argued that the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution was illegally ignored in the appointment of the board’s members. Because of this, they said a court should declare the board’s decisions void.
In July 2017 U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled against the first of these challenges, filed by Aurelius Investments. Swain ultimately ruled against the other two challenges.
The 1st Circuit Court for Appeals released a decision in mid-February about all three suits, partially reversing Swain. That court said that the appointments were unconstitutional and that appointments to the board would have to be done with presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The court said that it would allow the current board’s actions to stay under the de facto officer doctrine. It also said that the board members could continue to exercise their power for 90 days.
On March 1 the union petitioned the appeals court’s six active judges to consider its arguments, instead of just the original three judges. On Thursday five of the appeals court judges declined to conduct the review, and the sixth recused himself.
Later on Thursday UTIER President Ángel Figueroa Jaramillo said his union will seek the Supreme Court’s review.
On Thursday, its lead attorney, Rolando Emmanuelli Jiménez, said he was working on the petition to file it as soon as possible. “In the realm of speculation, if the petition for cert is granted, a decision could be issued before the [Supreme Court] recess in June, or after they return in October, probably between November or December,” Emmanuelli Jiménez wrote in an email.
On Feb. 28 the board said it would be seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the circuit court’s decision.
While the union is seeking to get the high court to rule that the board’s decisions going back to at least August 2017 are illegitimate and thus should be considered void, the board is seeking to get its appointment procedures be declared constitutional.
