Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

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

1970, 84 Stat. 473.  Congress changed what had been a uni-
fied court system where judges adjudicated both local and
federal issues into separate court systems, in one of which 
judges adjudicated primarily local issues.  §111, id., at 475. 
Courts in that category had criminal jurisdiction over only 
those cases brought “ ‘under any law applicable exclusively 
to the District of Columbia.’ ”  Id., at 486.  Its judges served 
for 15-year terms.  Id., at 491. 
  This Court, in Palmore, considered a local judge presiding 
over a local court.  Congress had created that court in the
exercise of its Article I power to “exercise exclusive Legisla-
tion in all Cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia. 
See Art I, §8, cl. 17.  The “focus” of these courts was “pri-
marily upon . . . matters of strictly local concern.”  411 U. S., 
at 407.  Hence, the nature of those courts was a “far cry” 
from that of the courts at issue in O’Donoghue.  Palmore, 
411 U. S., at 406. 

The Court added that Congress had created non-Article
III courts under its Article IV powers.  It wrote that Con-
gress could also create non-Article III courts under its Arti-
cle I powers.  Id., at 403, 410.  And it held that judges serv-
ing  on  those  non-Article  III  courts  lacked  Article  III 
protections.  Id., at 410. 

Palmore concerned Article I of the Constitution, not Arti-
cle IV.  And it concerned “the judicial Power of the United 
States,” not “Officers of the United States.”  But it provides
a rough analogy.  It holds that Article III protections do not 
apply to an Article I court “focus[ed],” unlike the courts at
issue  in  O’Donoghue,  primarily  on  local  matters.    Here, 
Congress  expressly  invoked  a  constitutional  provision  al-
lowing it to make local debt-related law (Article IV); it ex-
pressly  located  the  Board  within  the  local  government  of
Puerto Rico; it clearly indicated that it intended the Board’s
members  to  be  local  officials;  and  it  gave  them  primarily 
local powers, duties, and responsibilities.

In his concurring opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS criticizes the