Key Takeaways
- • Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Aurelius Capital Management, a New York hedge fund holding approximately $500 million in distressed Puerto Rican debt, in its constitutional challenge to the Puerto Rico Oversight Board's structure and authority.
- • Aurelius challenged the board's validity on Appointments Clause grounds, arguing that board members should have required Senate confirmation, but the Court determined the board's members exercise primarily local powers and thus fall outside the Appointments Clause requirement.
- • The ruling preserves the oversight board's authority to manage Puerto Rico's bankruptcy proceedings and fiscal supervision, enabling continued restructuring efforts for the territory's debt crisis without constitutional obstruction.
- • Justice Stephen Breyer's unanimous opinion narrowly defined the scope of the Appointments Clause, holding that officers exercising "primarily local" duties—including representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy and supervising fiscal and budgetary policies—do not require Senate confirmation.
- • The decision blocks a potentially significant victory for vulture fund creditors, who had secured a First Circuit win that would have invalidated the board's bankruptcy petitions and complicated debt restructuring efforts.
Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive defeat to Aurelius Capital Management on June 1, 2020, when the justices unanimously rejected the hedge fund's constitutional challenge to the Puerto Rico Oversight Board established to manage the territory's debt crisis. Aurelius, a New York-based hedge fund run by Republican donor Mark Brodsky, held nearly $500 million in distressed Puerto Rican debt and sought to invalidate the bankruptcy proceedings filed by the oversight board by challenging the constitutionality of the board's creation.
The hedge fund's legal strategy centered on the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause, which typically requires Senate confirmation for federal officers. Aurelius argued that because the seven-member board had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama without Senate confirmation, the appointments were unconstitutional. This argument initially prevailed at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, creating a serious threat to Puerto Rico's restructuring efforts.
However, the Supreme Court determined that the Appointments Clause did not apply to the board's members. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stephen Breyer reasoned that the board's powers and duties are "primarily local in nature," consisting mainly of representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy proceedings and supervising aspects of the territory's fiscal and budgetary policies. Because these functions are local rather than federal in character, Breyer concluded, the Appointments Clause does not dictate how the board's members must be selected. The ruling effectively preserved the board's authority to oversee Puerto Rico's financial restructuring without constitutional impediment.
The decision represents a significant setback for vulture fund creditors attempting to leverage constitutional arguments to obstruct Puerto Rico's debt crisis management. By maintaining the oversight board's legitimacy, the Court enabled the continuation of bankruptcy proceedings essential to addressing what the board had characterized as an escalating humanitarian crisis. The ruling reflects the justices' narrow interpretation of the Appointments Clause as inapplicable to officers exercising primarily territorial governance functions rather than federal authority.
The hedge fund's legal strategy centered on the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause, which typically requires Senate confirmation for federal officers. Aurelius argued that because the seven-member board had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama without Senate confirmation, the appointments were unconstitutional. This argument initially prevailed at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, creating a serious threat to Puerto Rico's restructuring efforts.
However, the Supreme Court determined that the Appointments Clause did not apply to the board's members. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stephen Breyer reasoned that the board's powers and duties are "primarily local in nature," consisting mainly of representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy proceedings and supervising aspects of the territory's fiscal and budgetary policies. Because these functions are local rather than federal in character, Breyer concluded, the Appointments Clause does not dictate how the board's members must be selected. The ruling effectively preserved the board's authority to oversee Puerto Rico's financial restructuring without constitutional impediment.
The decision represents a significant setback for vulture fund creditors attempting to leverage constitutional arguments to obstruct Puerto Rico's debt crisis management. By maintaining the oversight board's legitimacy, the Court enabled the continuation of bankruptcy proceedings essential to addressing what the board had characterized as an escalating humanitarian crisis. The ruling reflects the justices' narrow interpretation of the Appointments Clause as inapplicable to officers exercising primarily territorial governance functions rather than federal authority.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.