Puerto Rico Board Firings Fuel a National Battle Over Removals

The next battle over presidential power isn’t unfolding in Washington or before a major federal agency. It’s happening in San Juan, where a federal court this month froze the White House’s attempt to dismiss members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, another chapter in the book of cases that could reshape how presidents remove independent officials nationwide. The injunction signals that removal protections for independent agencies remain in place and, more broadly, upholds the separation of powers.

In August, President Donald Trump dismissed five of the seven members of Puerto Rico’s FOMB, striking at the heart of an institution central to the island’s fiscal recovery. The terminations, announced by email without stated cause, set off a lawsuit that now bridges two arenas: Puerto Rico’s governance and the US Supreme Court’s ongoing re-examination of presidential removal power.

The controversy is documented in the Congressional Research Service’s Sept. 30 report, “Dismissals of Members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board.” CRS notes that the removals of Arthur González, Betty Rosa, Andrew Biggs, Juan Sabater, Luis Ubiñas, and Cameron McKenzie raised immediate questions under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, which limits dismissal “only for cause.”

Within weeks, the dismissed members filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging that the administration’s actions violated PROMESA and the Fifth Amendment. On Oct. 3, Judge María Antongiorgi-Jordán issued a preliminary injunction in González v. Gor, barring the seating of replacements while the case proceeds.

The ruling didn’t enjoin the president personally, but it reaffirmed a crucial statutory point: When Congress conditions tenure “only for cause,” those words still carry legal force. The court held that PROMESA’s protections require notice, explanation, and an opportunity to respond before removal—a standard rooted in Shurtleff v. United States and reaffirmed four years ago in Collins v. Yellen.

This local decision coincides with national litigation testing the same constitutional boundary. The Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term includes Trump v. Slaughter, challenging the Federal Trade Commission’s long-standing removal protections, and Trump v. Cook, involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s statutory tenure. Both cases revisit whether Congress can restrict the president’s ability to dismiss officials who wield executive authority.

If the Supreme Court narrows Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld “for cause” limits for multimember commissions, the effect will cascade through the administrative state. PROMESA’s design places the FOMB squarely in that debate—its members are appointed by the president but act independently in restructuring territorial debt. If the Supreme Court holds that such restrictions violate Article II, Puerto Rico’s fiscal board could become the next casualty in a nationwide rollback of independent-agency protections.

For now, the injunction ensures continuity. The existing board retains authority over Puerto Rico’s budgets and debt-adjustment plans while the case moves through appeal. But the broader implications are evident. When a territorial dispute mirrors questions before the Supreme Court, it becomes a lens for national constitutional doctrine.

The dispute also highlights a practical tension. Congress created the FOMB to insulate fiscal decisions from political turnover. The White House now argues that insulation undermines democratic accountability. The district court’s order—tethered to statutory text rather than ideology—restores equilibrium, emphasizing that separation of powers cuts both ways: Congress may delegate, but it also may circumscribe.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides in Slaughter and Cook, González v. Gor is a reminder that the meaning of “for cause” still matters. For Puerto Rico, the outcome will determine who manages its recovery. For Washington, it will define how far Congress can go in fencing presidential power. In both contexts, the island again proves how territorial governance can illuminate national constitutional fault lines.

The case is González v. Gor, D.P.R., No. 3:25-cv-01508, opinion and order 10/3/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Anthony O. Maceira is the managing member of MZLS, a law firm in Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines