Whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the constitutionality of PROMESA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Since 1952, Puerto Rico has had a form of selfgovernment and a constitution of its own that states that the political power emanates from the People. However, in 2016, pursuant to the Territories Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress enacted PROMESA and imposed the Financial Oversight and Management Board (““FOMB?”) upon Puerto Rico to restructure the island’s outstanding debt. Despite that the FOMB was not elected by the People of Puerto Rico, PROMESA empowered it to sidestep and override the decisions of the elected government officials of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s self-government was torn apart by Congress, and the People of Puerto Rico were disenfranchised in violation of the 1st, 5th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Even though Petitioners, two labor unions that represent their members, and a registered voter, are creditors of the Commonwealth under Title III of PROMESA, the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the US. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that they do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the deprivation of their civil rights by PROMESA. Both courts determined that Petitioners’ injury is a generalized grievance. Thus, the questions presented for review are the following: 1. Whether Petitioners, as residents and registered voters in Puerto Rico, have suffered an li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued Article III injury in fact when Congress enacted PROMESA and disenfranchised them and the People of Puerto Rico in violation of the 1st, Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2. Whether the impairment of Petitioners’ collective bargaining agreements is redressable by declaring PROMESA unconstitutional for violating the due process of law clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. 3. Whether Petitioners have standing to allege that PROMESA is unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment for being enacted pursuant to the Territories Clause as interpreted in the Insular Cases, which established a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories based on race. 4. Whether Petitioners have standing to allege that PROMESA is unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment for depriving them and the People of Puerto Rico of their voting rights based on race as interpreted in the Insular Cases. 5. Since Petitioners’ disenfranchisement is a consequence of Puerto Rico’s status as a colony, whether Petitioners have standing to request the court to declare that Puerto Rico is subject to be decolonized under international law.