That’s a very technical-sounding decision, but it is a landmark in considering just what Puerto Rico is, in a legal and political sense. Much of the argument before the Court concerned the history of Puerto Rico and its relationship to Congress. The justices held that protection against double jeopardy is subject to the “separate sovereigns” doctrine, which treats criminal law in the court systems of the 50 states and in the federal courts as separate because of the sovereign status of each. The opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, holds that the ultimate sovereignty of each state does not originate from the federal government because each existed prior to admission to the Union.

The ultimate sovereignty for Puerto Rico, however, as Kagan writes, does not come from the territory but originates with Congress itself, a ruling which reaffirms the so-called “Insular Cases.” It firmly establishes Puerto Rico as an entity dependent on Congress, as opposed to anything resembling a state. The Court was not swayed by arguments that Puerto Rico should be treated as a sovereign because it functions as a sovereign, with a congressionally approved constitution and its own laws and government. It was also not swayed by arguments that the United States had inadvertently created sovereignty by declaring to the United Nations that Puerto Rico is a self-governing “commonwealth” in 1953.

What remains legally now is in many senses a colony with little real self-governing power and with a different set of rules––including the lack of the right to vote in federal elections. The United Nations declaration of 1953 was enough to remove it from an international declaration as a colonized territory, but the Court’s ruling denies any real sense of sovereignty for Puerto Rico and thus undermines that declaration. The ruling established the political status of the commonwealth, a status which will be clarified even further with Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, which was argued in March. That case deals with what tools Puerto Rico has to restructure its own debt and also explores the legal limits of Puerto Rican authority.

Both the Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle decision and the pending Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust decision have implications on the island’s massive humanitarian and debt crisis, especially with regards to the bill currently being considered in Congress as a way to resolve those crises. That bill, PROMESA, was passed in resounding fashion by the House Thursday. The bill—which establishes an independent restructuring board for Puerto Rico’s $70 billion in debt, provides protection against a looming multibillion-dollar default, and reduces minimum wage for young workers—has been characterized as a necessary step to avoid disaster.