Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 26

22 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BD. FOR 
PUERTO RICO v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC 
Opinion of the Court 

Harv. L. Rev. 169 (1901) (same).  Those cases did not reach 
this issue, and whatever their continued validity we will not 
extend them in these cases.  See Reid, supra, at 14. 

Neither,  since  we  hold  the  appointment  method  valid,
need we consider the application of the de facto officer doc-
trine.  See Ryder v. United States, 515 U. S. 177 (1995) (dis-
cussing the doctrine); see also, e.g., Brief for Aurelius et al. 
48–69 (arguing the doctrine does not apply in this context);
Brief  for  UTIER  69–85  (same);  Reply  Brief  for  United 
States 26–47 (insisting to the contrary); Brief for Cross-Re-
spondent  COFINA  Senior  Bondholders’  Coalition  14–46
(same).

Finally,  as  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  recognizes,  post,  at  8 
(opinion concurring in judgment), we need not, and there-
fore do not, decide questions concerning the application of 
the  Federal  Relations  Act  and  Public  Law  600.    No  party
has argued that those Acts bear any significant relation to
the  answer  to  the  Appointments  Clause  question  now  be-
fore us. 

For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court 
of  Appeals  and  remand  the  cases  for  further  proceedings
consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.