Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

In  short,  the  Board  possesses  considerable  power—in-
cluding the authority to substitute its own judgment for the 
considered judgment of the Governor and other elected offi-
cials.  But  this  power  primarily  concerns  local  matters. 
Congress’ law thus substitutes a different process for deter-
mining certain local policies (related to local fiscal respon-
sibility) in respect to local matters.  And that is the critical 
point for current purposes.  The local nature of the legisla-
tion’s expressed purposes, the representation of local inter-
ests  in  bankruptcy  proceedings,  the  focus  of  the  Board’s 
powers upon local expenditures, the local logistical support, 
the reliance on local laws in aid of the Board’s procedural
powers—all these features when taken together and judged
in the light of Puerto Rico’s history (and that of the Territo-
ries  and  the  District  of  Columbia)—make  clear  that  the 
Board’s  members  have  primarily  local  duties,  such  that 
their  selection  is  not  subject  to  the  constraints  of  the  Ap-
pointments Clause. 

IV 

The  Court  of  Appeals,  pointing  to  three  of  this  Court’s 
cases,  reached  the  opposite  conclusion.  See  Buckley  v. 
Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), Freytag v. Commis-
sioner,  501  U. S.  868,  and  Lucia  v.  SEC,  585  U. S.  ___ 
(2018).  It pointed out that the Court, in those cases, dis-
cussed the term “Officer of the United States,” and it con-
cluded that, for Appointments Clause purposes, an appoin-
tee  is  such  an  “officer”  if  “(1)  the  appointee  occupies  a
‘continuing’ position established by federal law; (2) the ap-
pointee ‘exercis[es] significant authority’; and (3) the signif-
icant  authority  is  exercised  ‘pursuant  to  the  laws  of  the 
United States.’ ”  915 F. 3d, at 856.  The Court of Appeals
concluded that the Board members satisfied this test.  See 
id., at 856–857. 

We do not believe these three cases set forth the critical 
legal test relevant here, however, and we do not apply any