The U.S. Supreme Court case Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC (2019) revolved around the constitutionality of appointments to the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, a body created by Congress in 2016 to address the territory's financial crisis. The board was challenged by hedge fund Aurelius Investment and a labor union who argued that its members were officers of the United States but had not been appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, it was held that while board members are indeed officers of Puerto Rico rather than federal officials, their duties are primarily local and do not require Senate confirmation under Article II’s Appointments Clause as they don't exercise significant authority pursuant to laws of United States.

In the dissenting opinion for Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, Justice Thomas argued that the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to all federal officers including those with duties in non-state territories like Puerto Rico. He disagreed with the majority's view that Congress can establish offices without adhering to constitutional appointment procedures if their duties are primarily local. According to him, this interpretation is inconsistent with historical practices and undermines constitutional safeguards designed to prevent concentration of power. Furthermore, he contended that members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board were indeed "Officers of The United States" as they exercised significant authority under U.S law; hence should have been appointed according to rules set out in Article II Section 2 Clause 2 (Appointments Clause) rather than by mere statute.