783 F.3d 42
1st Cir.2015Background
- Basilio Torres‑Rivera was appointed Chair and Commissioner of the Puerto Rico Industrial Commission (PRIC) in May 2012; the position had been understood to carry a six‑year term under Law 45.
- After the 2012 change in Puerto Rico's administration, the Legislative Assembly enacted Law 180‑2013, which made the PRIC Chair a freely removable position; Governor García‑Padilla removed Torres‑Rivera and appointed Grace Lozada‑Crespo.
- Torres‑Rivera filed suit in federal district court alleging violations of his procedural‑due‑process and First Amendment rights and sought declaratory relief, damages, and a preliminary injunction reinstating him.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, vacating Lozada‑Crespo’s appointment and reinstating Torres‑Rivera as Chair and Commissioner pending resolution.
- The Commonwealth parties agreed that Puerto Rico courts provide adequate remedies; the First Circuit considered comity and the extraordinary nature of federal equitable relief involving high‑level political appointments.
- The First Circuit remanded with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction within 30 days, dismiss Torres‑Rivera’s due process claim without prejudice (to allow state‑court relief), decide the First Amendment claim, and, if appropriate, decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining Commonwealth claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres‑Rivera had a constitutionally protected property interest in the PRIC Chair that required predeprivation process | Torres‑Rivera: the six‑year term created a property interest in the Chair that cannot be removed without due process | Defendants: Law 180 eliminated any protected term; legislature can alter statutory entitlements; post‑deprivation state remedies are adequate | Court did not decide the merits; remanded to vacate federal injunction because state remedies are adequate and comity counsels against federal equitable relief |
| Whether extraordinary federal injunctive relief reinstating a Commonwealth political appointee is appropriate when state remedies exist | Torres‑Rivera: immediate reinstatement required to prevent irreparable harm | Defendants: such relief is extraordinary, implicates comity, and should not issue when adequate Commonwealth remedies exist | Held: federal reinstatement was inappropriate here given comity and conceded adequacy of Puerto Rico remedies; injunction must be vacated |
| Whether legislative repeal or change (Law 180‑2013) can eliminate property interests created by statute | Torres‑Rivera: statute conferred a protected term not subject to unilateral legislative removal | Defendants: legislature may alter or terminate statutory entitlements; no federal due process violation if legislature destroys the entitlement | Court reiterated that legislative elimination of statutory entitlements generally bars a federal due process claim and remains good law |
| Whether the district court should retain pendent jurisdiction over remaining Commonwealth claims after dismissal of the federal due process claim | Torres‑Rivera: keep claims in federal court for efficiency | Defendants: federal court should dismiss and allow state forum to decide Commonwealth issues | Held: district court instructed to resolve First Amendment claim and, if dismissed, to decline pendent jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Acevedo‑Feliciano v. Ruiz‑Hernández, 447 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2006) (consideration of adequacy of state remedies in procedural‑due‑process federal relief)
- El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez‑Colón, 963 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1992) (equitable remedies should be granted with judicial discretion and caution to avoid friction with state policies)
- Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525 (1926) (injunctive relief against state officers should be sparingly issued and only when necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury)
- Rosario‑Torres v. Hernandez‑Colon, 889 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1989) (reinstatement is an equitable, case‑specific remedy and not inevitable)
- Correa‑Ruiz v. Fortuño, 573 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (legislature may alter or terminate statutory entitlements; such legislative action generally precludes a federal due process claim)
- R.R. Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (federal courts should avoid needless friction with state policies and may abstain to allow state courts to resolve important state constitutional questions)