Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla, 750 F.3d 7

Díaz-Carrasquillo sues the Governor and officials after 2013 laws abolished his position as Disabilities Advocate under Reorganization Plan No. 1-2011.
Act 75 (2013) repealed the Plan; Act 78 reestablished an Office of the Ombudsman for Persons with Disabilities and gave the Governor appointment authority for a ten-year term.
Díaz was appointed Disabilities Advocate on November 15, 2011; no record of performance issues.
On August 28, 2013 Díaz was informed that, under Acts 75 and 78, an Acting Ombudsman had been appointed and his Advocate position abolished.
The district court granted a temporary restraining order, found potential quasi-judicial nature of the role, and noted irreparable harm from removal.
The First Circuit vacated the injunction, holding that the Advocate position was lawfully abolished and that the district court erred in issuing the injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Advocate position abolished by the 2013 legislation?	Díaz argues the position remained, or that abolition was not explicit.	García argues the Plan was repealed and the Ombudsman office created, abolishing the Advocate.	Abolition valid; Plan repeal eliminated the Advocate position.
Did Díaz have any property or due process rights in the Advocate position?	The position conferred a property right and due process required removal for cause with a hearing.	There was no property interest; legislative action could abolish the office with due process via process provided by law.	No protected property right; due process satisfied by legislative process.
Does Article 20 save Díaz from abolition by excluding his position from saving provisions?	Saving provisions could preserve Díaz's position.	Exclusion shows legislative intent not to save Díaz.	Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; Díaz not saved by saving provisions.
Can federal courts enjoin or restrain Puerto Rico's legislative restructuring of offices?	Federal court should protect Díaz's quasi-judicial role from abolition.	Federal courts provide no constraint on legitimate state legislature actions.	Court vacates injunction; declines to restrain legislative restructuring.

Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (distinguishes removal from appointment issues in federal cases)
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) (limits on congressional removal protections; relevant to appointment/removal analysis)
Gómez v. Negrón Fernández, 65 P.R.R. 286 (1945) (Legislature may abolish positions; historical Puerto Rico authority)
Lewis v. United States, 244 U.S. 134 (1917) (repeal of an act creating an office abolishes it)
Brame v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 252 (1986) (abolition of nonconstitutional offices by legislature)
Abt v. United States, 146 Ct. Cl. 205 (1959) (abolition and congressional power over offices)
Higginbotham v. Baton Rouge, 306 U.S. 535 (1939) (state legislature may create or abolish offices)
Bastian v. Kennedy, 829 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (legislature exercises power to abolish nonconstitutional offices)
New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (framework for evaluating preliminary injunctions on four factors)
Sunshine Dev., Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 33 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 1994) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius applied to legislative saving provisions)
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003) (statutory interpretation maxim used to infer exclusions)