Page:FOMBPR v. CPI.pdf/2

Syllabus

2126(a)—clearly abrogates the Board’s immunity.

Held: Nothing in PROMESA—including its jurisdictional provision, Section 2126(a)—categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Board enjoys from legal claims. This Court assumes without deciding that Puerto Rico is immune from suit in United States district court, and that the Board partakes of that immunity. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.

This Court has often held that Congress must make its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 73. The Court has applied that clear-statement rule in cases naming the federal government, States, and Indian tribes as defendants. And it has found that standard met in only two situations: when a statute says, in so many words, that it is stripping immunity from a sovereign entity, e.g., 35 U. S. C. §296(a), and when a statute creates a cause of action and authorizes suit against a government on that claim, see, e.g., Kimel, 528 U. S., at 73–74. PROMESA fits neither of these molds. Except by reference to the Bankruptcy Code in Title III debt-restructuring proceedings, see 11 U. S. C. §106(a); 48 U. S. C. §2161(a), PROMESA does not provide that the Board or Puerto Rico is subject to suit. Nor does PROMESA create any cause of action for use against the Board or Puerto Rico. Thus, Congress has not, through a means this Court has recognized, “ma[de] its intention” to abrogate immunity “unmistakably clear.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 73.

CPI claims to identify the required clear statement in PROMESA’s establishment of a judicial review scheme. Section 2126(a) provides that “any action against the Oversight Board, and any action otherwise arising out of” PROMESA, “shall be brought” in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico. In CPI’s view, that provision—especially when combined with Section 2126(c)’s allusion to “declaratory or injunctive relief against the Oversight Board”—contemplates that the Board would be subject to suit in federal court. But those provisions serve a function even absent a categorical abrogation of immunity, in cases where the Board’s immunity has been waived or abrogated by other statutes. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act abrogates the immunity of “governments” and “governmental agencies” from all actions it authorizes. 42 U. S. C. §§2000e(a)–(b). If a Board employee were fired because of race, Section 2126(a) would tell the employee where to bring the suit and Section 2126(c) would govern the timing of injunctive and declaratory relief. Nor do protections that PROMESA provides the Board from litigation fill the gap. Again, CPI is wrong to think those provisions “superfluous” unless PROMESA generally abrogates the Board’s immunity. Section 2125’s protection of Board members from monetary liability would do work whenever some other