What standard of review governs a district court's evaluation of the Board's determination that Puerto Rican legislation 'would impair or defeat the purposes of' PROMESA, and its review of that legislation for consistency with the fiscal plan?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (““PROMESA”) establishes two anti-democratic limitations on the power of Puerto Rico’s Governor and Legislature to enact or enforce new statutes. First, PROMESA Section 108(a) prohibits enacting or enforcing any law “that would impair or defeat the purposes of? PROMESA, “as determined by” the federally-appointed Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (“Board”). 48 U.S.C. § 2128(a)(2). Second, PROMESA Section 204(a) allows the Board to seek to nullify legislation that is “significantly inconsistent with” the Board’s certified fiscal plan, id. § 2144(a), a blueprint for the Commonwealth’s fiscal goals. As part of this process, Section 204(a) requires the Governor to submit to the Board a “formal estimate ... of the impact, if any, that the law will have on expenditures and revenues.” Id. § 2144(a)(2)(A). If the Governor fails to submit such an estimate as well as a certification that the new law is not significantly inconsistent with the fiscal plan, Section 204(a) allows the Board to “seek judicial enforcement of its authority” to “ensure that the enactment or enforcement of the law will not adversely affect the territorial government’s compliance with the Fiscal Plan, including preventing the enforcement or application of the law.” Id. §§ 2124(k); 2144(a)(5). The questions presented are: 1. What standard of review governs a district court’s evaluation of the Board’s determination that Puerto Rican legislation “would impair or defeat the purposes of? PROMESA, id. § 2128(a)(2), and its review of that legislation for consistency with the fiscal ii plan, id. § 2144(a)? 2. Does this standard of review require the Board to reasonably and contemporaneously explain its decisions without relying on post-hoc justifications? 3. Did the court of appeals err in affirming the Title III Court’s holding that the Board’s determinations regarding Acts 47, 82, 138, and 176 were not arbitrary and capricious?