Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

inquiry we set out—whether an officer’s duties are primar-
ily local or primarily federal—as too “amorphous,” post, at 
10.  But we think this is the test established by the Consti-
tution’s text, as illuminated by historical practice.  And we 
cannot see how Congress could avoid the strictures of the 
Appointments Clause by adding to a federal officer’s other 
obligations a large number of local duties.  Indeed, we think 
that our test, tied as it is to both the text and the history of 
the  Appointments  Clause,  is  more  rigorous  than  the  bare 
inquiry  into  the  “nature”  of  the  officer’s  authority  that 
JUSTICE THOMAS proposes, and we believe it is more faith-
ful to the Clause’s original meaning.  Ibid. 

V 
We  conclude,  for  the  reasons  stated,  that  the  Constitu-
tion’s Appointments Clause applies to the appointment of 
officers of the United States with powers and duties in and 
in relation to Puerto Rico, but that the congressionally man-
dated process for selecting members of the Financial Over-
sight and Management Board for Puerto Rico does not vio-
late  that  Clause.  Given  this  conclusion,  we  need  not 
consider the request by some of the parties that we overrule 
the much-criticized “Insular Cases” and their progeny.  See, 
e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 287 (1901) (opinion 
of  Brown,  J.);  Balzac  v.  Porto  Rico,  258  U. S.  298,  309 
(1922); Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 14 (1957) (plurality opin-
ion) (indicating that the Insular Cases should not be further 
extended);  see  also  Brief  for  Official  Committee  of  Unse-
cured  Creditors  of  All  Title  III  Debtors  (Other  than 
COFINA)  20–25  (arguing  that  the  Insular  Cases  support 
reversal  on  the  Appointments  Clause  issue);  Brief  for 
UTIER  64–66  (encouraging  us  to  overrule  the  Insular 
Cases); Brief for Virgin Islands Bar Association as Amicus 
Curiae 13–18 (same); Cabranes, Citizenship and the Amer-
ican Empire, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 391, 436–442 (1978) (criti-
cizing the Insular Cases); Littlefield, The Insular Cases, 15