Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 53

16 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BD. FOR 
PUERTO RICO v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC 
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

U. S. Const., Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, the purported source of legis-
lative authority for enacting PROMESA, see §101(b)(2), 130 
Stat.  553;  ante,  at  5.  May  Congress  ever  simply  cede  its 
power under that Clause to legislate for the Territories, and 
did it do so nearly 60 years ago with respect to Puerto Rico? 
If so, is PROMESA itself invalid, at least insofar as it holds 
itself  out  as  an  exercise  of  Territories  Clause  authority?
This  Court  has  never  squarely  addressed  such  questions, 
except perhaps to acknowledge that Congress’ authority un-
der  the  Territories  Clause  may  “continu[e]  until  granted
away.”  National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U. S. 129, 
133  (1880);  cf.  Cincinnati  Soap  Co.  v.  United  States,  301 
U. S. 308, 319 (1937) (recognizing that a statute preparing
the  Philippine  Islands  for  independence  from  the  United 
States  “brought  about  a  profound  change  in  the  status  of 
the islands and in their relations to the United States,” such 
that  “the  power  of  the  United  States  has  been  modified,” 
even while “it has not been abolished”).   

After  all,  the  Territories  Clause  provides  Congress  not
only the power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territor[ies],” but also the power to “dispose
of ” them, which necessarily encompasses the power to re-
linquish authority to legislate for them.  U. S. Const., Art. 
IV, §3, cl. 2.  And some have insisted that the power to cede
authority  exists  no  less  in  the  absence  of  full  “dispos[al]”
through independence or Statehood.  See Aleinikoff, Sem-
blances of Sovereignty, at 77 (“It has been strongly argued
that”  with  “the  establishment  of  commonwealth  status,” 
“Congress lost general power to regulate the internal affairs
of Puerto Rico”).

Still, the parties here do not dispute Congress’ ability to
enact PROMESA under the Territories Clause in the first 
place; nor does it seem strictly necessary to call that matter
into question to resolve the Appointments Clause concern pre-
sented here.  Despite the “full measure of self-government”
the  island  supposedly  enjoys,  U. N.  Charter,  Art.  73;  see