Context:
The constitution prohibits double jeopardy, which means that individuals cannot be charged for the same crime twice by the same sovereign. However, they can be charged for the same criminal activity by both federal and state governments, which are two separate sovereigns. Puerto Rico had been charging individuals for the same criminal activity since 1952. The question for the Supreme Court was whether Puerto Rico was a separate sovereign for purposes of the double jeopardy clause.
The Case: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle et al.
○ In simplified terms, this case determined that Puerto Rico was not a separate sovereign, for purposes of double jeopardy cases, and that the source of the local government’s entire authority came, not from its own people and elected power, but from whatever authority Congress decided to grant it.
○ In a dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer raised concerns about this interpretation as being in conflict with the United States’ obligations under international law, stating that the U.S. had misled the international community since 1952 by insisting that in fact Puerto Rico had limited sovereignty.
Consequences:
○ This decision was interpreted by many as an affirmation by the courts that PROMESA, which passed the same day this decision was released, could be constitutional given the plenary powers theory.
As recently as June 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the appointments to the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB), reinforcing the plenary powers of the federal government over Puerto Rico and the treatment of the Island and other U.S. territories as just federal property. The decision was pivotal. Not only because it was unanimous, but also due to a concurrent opinion issued by Justice Sotomayor over the potential violation that PROMESA represents to the 1952 “compact.”