First Circuit remands PROMESA removal case, ordering parties to address impact of Trump v. Cook

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has sent back to the district court the long‑running dispute over President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to remove three members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board.

The ruling concludes a month‑long process in which the appellate panel sought guidance from the parties following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Trump v. Cook.

In a judgment entered on August 17, a panel comprising Justices Gustavo A. Gelpí, Lara E. Montecalvo, and Seth R. Aframe granted an unopposed motion filed by federal defendants White House Director Sergio Gor and President Trump. Citing the Supreme Court’s June decision, the court granted the request and ordered the matter “remanded to the district court for further proceedings,” directing that the mandate issue immediately.

The judgment follows a July 1 order in which the First Circuit formally restarted the case after months on hold. That earlier directive instructed the U.S. Department of Justice and former Board members Arthur J. González, Betty Rosa, and Andrew Biggs to file motions within 30 days explaining how the appeal should proceed in light of Trump v. Cook, which clarified when courts may review presidential removals of officials protected by “for cause” language.

“We are in receipt of appellants’ Status Report in which they informed us of the issuance by the Supreme Court of its opinion in Trump v. Cook,” the panel wrote on July 1, ordering all parties to file motions governing further proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decision arrived at a pivotal moment for the PROMESA litigation. In Cook, the Court blocked President Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the Fed’s institutional independence even as the majority strengthened presidential authority over other government entities. The ruling drew a sharp distinction between statutes that list specific grounds for removal, such as “inefficiency,” “neglect of duty,” or “malfeasance,” and statutes that use the broad, undefined phrase “for cause.”

PROMESA’s removal clause mirrors that broader structure. It states only that “the President may remove any member of the Oversight Board only for cause,” without defining the term, enumerating grounds, or requiring notice or a hearing. Under Cook, that statutory silence could be central to the outcome of the Puerto Rico dispute.

González, Rosa, and Biggs sued in 2025 after President Trump attempted to remove them, arguing that the action was unlawful and violated their due‑process rights. A federal judge in Puerto Rico agreed, ruling that the removals were illegal and blocking the President’s action, which set the stage for the appeal.

The Justice Department has maintained that the President removed the members for “inefficiency, ineffectiveness, neglect, and failure,” citing what it described as their inability to resolve Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis and alleged mismanagement of public funds.

“Bodies under Plaintiffs’ supervision have lavished funds on law firms, advertisers, and consultants… roughly $2 billion in professional ‘advising’ fees… over $250 million in consultant and law‑firm fees into PREPA’s bankruptcy proceedings,” DOJ wrote.

The government further argued that the President’s judgment is not reviewable, that public office is not a protected property interest, and that PROMESA contains no procedural protections such as notice or a hearing.

The First Circuit’s July 1 order did not resolve those questions. Instead, it required both sides to explain what remains of the case after Cook: whether any claims survive, whether the district court’s prior rulings should be vacated or dismissed, and whether supplemental briefing or remand was appropriate.

With the August 17 judgment, the appellate court has now answered the last of those questions. The case returns to the district court, where Judge María Antongiorgi‑Jordán will reconsider the dispute under the Supreme Court’s clarified framework for presidential removal authority.