Part I rejects the prevailing but false dichotomy between property rights and human dignity concerns. In order to contextualize this point and further discussion in this Article, Part I also gives an overview of the Puerto Rican debt crisis, its causes, and recent government responses, and then reconstructs the framing of the crisis by analyzing the dignity and property claims of both the Puerto Ricans and those holding Commonwealth debt. Having established the interlocking claims of these parties, Part II tests their resolution by analyzing the application of the Bankruptcy Clause and the Takings Clause and argues that the Supreme Court’s view of property rights in bankruptcy—specifically those of secured creditors—has become too constrained and fails to appreciate the ways in which human values inform and shape property rights, particularly related to the extreme human toll that a public debt crisis entails. Rather than approaching a creditor’s rights under the rigid doctrines and inflexible rules that currently prevail, Part III—using the case of Puerto Rico and relying on scholarship arising from the progressive property movement—concludes by arguing that intrinsic human concerns should play a significant role in shaping the scope and allocation of property rights in public debt recomposition. Additionally, courts should be given a freer hand in dealing with such obligations. In adopting a broader, more progressive view of property rights when it comes to public debt, courts and Congress will be empowered to better help and protect the rights of all parties in times of serious financial distress.
