48 U.S.C. § 2126

Treatment of actions arising from chapter

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 48 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction

Except as provided in section 2124(f)(2) of this title (relating to the issuance of an order enforcing a subpoena), and subchapter III (relating to adjustments of debts), any action against the Oversight Board, and any action otherwise arising out of this chapter, in whole or in part, shall be brought in a United States district court for the covered territory or, for any covered territory that does not have a district court, in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

(b) Appeal

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any order of a United States district court that is issued pursuant to an action brought under subsection (a) shall be subject to review only pursuant to a notice of appeal to the applicable United States Court of Appeals.

Except with respect to any orders entered to remedy constitutional violations, no order of any court granting declaratory or injunctive relief against the Oversight Board, including relief permitting or requiring the obligation, borrowing, or expenditure of funds, shall take effect during the pendency of the action before such court, during the time appeal may be taken, or (if appeal is taken) during the period before the court has entered its final order disposing of such action.

(d) Expedited consideration

It shall be the duty of the applicable United States District Court, the applicable United States Court of Appeals, and, as applicable, the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought under this chapter.

(e) Review of Oversight Board certifications

There shall be no jurisdiction in any United States district court to review challenges to the Oversight Board’s certification determinations under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title I, § 106, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 562.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a), (d), and (e), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 114–187, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 549, known as the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act and also as PROMESA, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2101 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. FOMB, 35 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. FOMB, 35 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “48 U.S.C. § 2126 (a). Paragraph (c) clearly contemplates that declaratory and injunctive relief may be ordered against the Board, as well as orders related to alleged constitutional violations: Except with respect to any orders entered to remedy constitutional violations, no…”

Méndez-Núñez v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.), 916 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e) ; see Rivera-Schatz , 327 F.”

Peaje Investments LLC v. Garcia-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505 (1st Cir. 2017). “” 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (d). The parties shall bear their own costs, and the mandate shall issue forthwith.”

Asociacion Puertorriquena de Profesores Univ. v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 60 F.4th 9 (1st Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “" 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e). The magistrate judge further recommended that, given the dismissal of the claims against the Oversight Board, the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the UPR defendants, which are all matters of…”

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Commonwealth (In Re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico), 927 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2019). “" 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e). As this court recently explained, "PROMESA grants the Board exclusive authority to certify Fiscal Plans and Territory Budgets for Puerto Rico.”

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Com. of Puerto Rico (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico), 297 F. Supp. 3d 269 (2018). “48 U.S.C.S. § 2126 (e) (LexisNexis 2017).”

Rivera-Schatz v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.), 327 F. Supp. 3d 364 (2018). “48 U.S.C.A. § 2126 (e) (West 2017). The Complaint's requests for relief that directly implicate the Oversight Board's certification decisions-including seeking a judgment nullifying the Budget and reinstating a different budget (Compl.”

Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). · cites it 6× “] 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (a). 13 The Government also argues that “[S]ection 2126(a) vests jurisdiction over ‘any action otherwise arising out of PROMESA, in whole or in part,’ in the [United States D]istrict [C]ourt” for the District of Puerto Rico.”

Utier v. Prepa (1st Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “FOMB certified a fiscal plan and budget for PREPA that include the Front-End Transition Service Fee, and the Title III court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e) to decide the objectors' challenge to that certification decision.”

Miya Water Projects Netherlands B.V. v. FOMB, 138 F.4th 49 (1st Cir. 2025). “Although Congress provided in PROMESA that actions against the Board "shall be brought" in federal court, 48 U.S.C. § 2126 , the Supreme Court has held that this language does not meet the "high bar" for establishing that Congress intended to eliminate the Board's Eleventh…”

UTIER v. Ortiz Vazquez (1st Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e); see also In re Fin.”

Rivera-Schatz v. FOMB (1st Cir. 2019). “" 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (e); see Rivera-Schatz, 327 F.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.