Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 55

18 

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

appointments referenced by the parties occurred in circum-
stances where, as in the case of Puerto Rico, Congress pre-
viously granted the Territories complete home rule.  See in-
fra, at 18–19, and nn. 4–5.  Instead, they largely occurred 
during the initial or transitional stages of a Territory’s ex-
istence, when often the terms of the organic statute estab-
lishing  the  Territory  expressly  provided  for  the  Federal 
Government to act on behalf of the Territory.  (After all, in
newly established Territories, no recognized territorial gov-
ernment existed until the organic statute established one.) 
Because in that state of affairs, an organic statute plainly
contemplated that Congress had authority to establish of-
fices for the Territory, such congressionally established of-
fices could fairly—indeed, necessarily—be treated as “terri-
torial”  to  the  extent  they  were  tasked  with  territorial 
duties. 

Does that necessarily remain the case if Congress later
grants or establishes complete territorial self-government?
As Puerto Rico’s history may demonstrate, it is seemingly 
at that point that Congress purports to recognize that the 
Territory  itself  (not  the  Federal  Government)  wields  au-
thority over matters of the Territory, including the ability 
to  select  its  own  territorial  officers.    Perhaps  it  is  also  at
that point that a distinction between territorial officers and
federal  officers  crystallizes:  Territorial  officers  are  those 
who derive their authority from the people of the Territory;
federal  officers  are  those  who  derive  their  authority  from
the Federal Government.  And here, the Board members in-
disputably are selected by the Federal Government, under 
a  statute  passed  by  Congress  that  specifies  not  just  their 
governance  responsibilities  but  also  the  priorities  of  their 
decisionmaking.  See ante, at 3–4. 

The scores of historical vignettes highlighted by petition-
ers,  see,  e.g.,  Brief  for  Petitioner  Financial  Oversight  and 
Management  Board  for  Puerto  Rico  28–33;  Brief  for  Peti-