Supreme Court of the United States

“ Too, PROMESA does not create any cause of action (or otherwise approve any claim) for use against the Board or Puerto Rico. So recognizing immunity under PROMESA would not—as in the ADEA, FMLA, and IGRA cases—authorize a suit against a sovereign with one hand, only to bar it with the other. Instead, immunity would operate in the ordinary way—to protect a sovereign from a host of claims Congress has not otherwise said may proceed. The upshot is evident: Congress has not, through a means we have recognized, “ma [de] its intention” to abrogate immunity “unmistakably clear.” ”

“ Here, however, all sides agree that Puerto Rico is a Territory, not a State. See Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle, 579 U. S. 59, 75–77 (2016) . Accordingly, it is difficult to see how the same inherent sovereign immunity that the States enjoy in federal court would apply to Puerto Rico. ”

“ The court began by citing Circuit precedent that Puerto Rico (like a State or Indian tribe) enjoys sovereign immunity. It then “assume [d] without deciding” that the Board shares in Puerto Rico’s immunity, noting that CPI had not contested that issue. Id., at 15. That was the Board’s final piece of good news—for the court next held that PROMESA abrogates the Board’s (assumed) immunity. Congress may abrogate sovereign immunity, the court noted, “by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” ”

“ Except in Title III debt-restructuring proceedings (not at issue here) , the statute does not provide that the Board or Puerto Rico is subject to suit. See supra, at 2. And indeed, the exception implies the opposite as a general rule. The immunity provision that PROMESA borrows from the Bankruptcy Code for Title III cases states: “ [S] overeign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit,” including a “Territory.” ”

“ Ante, at 5. In doing so, the majority effectively decides the outcome of this case. Because I would reach the antecedent question and hold that petitioner lacks the only immunity it has ever asserted, I respectfully dissent.
Respondent, Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (CPI) , sued petitioner, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, over a document-disclosure dispute. ”

“ For example, we explained in Grubbs that it would “mak [e] little sense to address what the Fourth Amendment requires of anticipatory search warrants if it does not allow them at all.” 547 U. S., at 94, n. 1. ”