Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A class of noncitizens with final removal orders challenged new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies issued in March and July 2025, which authorized their removal to “third countries”—countries neither designated in their removal orders nor identified in writing during prior proceedings. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS’s policy failed to provide effective notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest removal to these third countries based on reasonable fear of persecution or torture. The policies also relied on diplomatic assurances from receiving countries, sometimes removing individuals without further protective procedures.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order, granted class certification, and later a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to provide written notice and an opportunity for class members to assert fear-based claims before any third-country removal. After DHS appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay pending appellate review. On remand, the district court dissolved the preliminary injunction and issued a final judgment, concluding that DHS’s guidance violated statutory requirements for sequencing removal destinations, and failed to provide notice and hearing for fear-based claims, including those under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court ordered declaratory relief and vacated the guidance as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing on the “sequencing” claim and vacated the related declarations. However, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment that DHS must provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest removal to a third country based on fear-based claims, and upheld the vacatur of DHS guidance as unlawful under the APA. The court rejected DHS’s jurisdictional and remedy arguments, clarifying that declaratory and vacatur relief were permissible and not barred by statute. View "D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rico limited liability company, Berkey International, LLC, manufactures water filters known as Black Berkey Filters, which contain silver—a substance recognized as a pesticide. Berkey distributed these filters without EPA registration, claiming the silver was intended only to protect the filters themselves, not for pesticidal purposes. Inspections by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that Berkey and associated distributors made claims on product labels and websites indicating the filters could remove viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens, suggesting pesticidal intent. As a result, the EPA issued a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order prohibiting Berkey and other distributors from selling or distributing these filters.Reviewing the matter, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico considered Berkey’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the EPA’s order. The district court evaluated the administrative record, held hearings, and reviewed extensive briefing. The court found that Berkey had not substantiated its claims that the silver was not intended for pesticidal use and denied Berkey’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Berkey’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting Berkey to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Applying a highly deferential standard to the EPA’s technical determinations, the appellate court concluded that Berkey had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, including its assertions of arbitrary and capricious agency action and violations of notice-and-comment and due process requirements. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the EPA had reason to believe Berkey’s filters were unregistered and misbranded pesticidal products under federal law. View "Berkey International, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Two Black firefighters employed by the Springfield Fire Department alleged racial and religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming harassment beginning around 2014. One plaintiff, who is Muslim, reported being denied a promotion despite being the only eligible applicant, and later experienced unfavorable treatment regarding training, evaluations, and disciplinary actions compared to white colleagues. The other plaintiff, a Jehovah’s Witness, alleged discriminatory promotion practices and procedural irregularities that favored white candidates. Both plaintiffs asserted that the department tolerated and sometimes participated in hostile conduct, including racist and anti-Muslim social media posts by fellow firefighters, some of whom held supervisory positions. The plaintiffs claimed the fire department failed to protect them from harassment, even after formal complaints.After mediation failed, the plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, among other claims. The District Court dismissed several claims and defendants but allowed the core allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against the City of Springfield to proceed. At trial, both sides presented evidence about departmental procedures, supervisor obligations, and the City’s response to the alleged harassment. The jury found in favor of the defendants on all counts, and the plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in responding to a jury question, nor did it err in its instructions regarding the relevance of Civil Service decisions, the First Amendment, or employer liability under Massachusetts law. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Savage v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

The defendant, a Maine resident with multiple prior felony convictions, was arrested after a state trooper observed him at a gas station and detained him based on an active felony warrant. During the arrest, Levasseur admitted to possessing a hunting rifle in his truck, which was loaded, and to having methamphetamine in the vehicle. He later stated he intended to hunt deer for food, although he lacked a hunting license, and disclosed a daily methamphetamine addiction. His criminal history included three illegal firearm possession convictions and other felonies, including drug possession and bail violations.A grand jury indicted Levasseur for possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment, referencing New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and later United States v. Rahimi. The district court denied both his initial and renewed motions, ruling that his felony conviction for methamphetamine possession rendered him sufficiently dangerous to be disarmed under the Second Amendment, based on historical analogues of disarming categories of dangerous individuals.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal rulings de novo. The First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment could apply to individuals with felony convictions and entertained Levasseur’s as-applied challenge. The court held that Levasseur failed to demonstrate error in the district court’s determination that he could constitutionally be disarmed due to posing a special danger of misusing firearms. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed his conviction, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him. View "US v. Levasseur" on Justia Law

A plaintiff who won a substantial lottery prize in Maine sought to protect his identity and that of his minor daughter from public disclosure. He entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the mother of his child, intending to keep details of his lottery win and finances private. After the plaintiff believed the NDA was breached, he sued for injunctive relief and damages in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Throughout the proceedings, both parties were initially allowed to litigate under pseudonyms, and a local news organization intervened to advocate for public access. As trial approached, the plaintiff moved to close the courtroom to the public and to continue using pseudonyms, arguing that disclosure could jeopardize his family’s safety and his daughter’s privacy.The District Court for the District of Maine denied both requests. It issued a detailed opinion emphasizing the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, citing common-law tradition and relevant federal rules. The court found that while the case involved sensitive financial and familial information, such concerns did not outweigh the public’s right to access. The court determined that the plaintiff’s wealth and desire for privacy did not constitute “unusually severe harm” justifying deviation from established principles. Additionally, the court noted that any potential harm to the minor child would be mitigated by identifying her only by initials, a standard protocol. The plaintiff timely appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case under the abuse of discretion standard. It affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that neither the plaintiff’s wealth nor purported risks to his family met the exceptional circumstances required for trial closure or continued pseudonymity. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s balancing of public access against privacy interests and awarded costs to the appellees. View "Doe v. Smith" on Justia Law

Jose Miguel Pena de la Cruz, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on charges related to money laundering. After being released from criminal custody on conditions set by a magistrate judge, he was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. The government then informed the district court that Pena de la Cruz would soon be deported. In response, the district court, treating the government’s notice as a motion to dismiss, ordered that the indictment be dismissed with prejudice upon his deportation.Before reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the district court had issued several orders regarding ICE custody and deportation of criminal defendants, including a standing order that generally barred ICE detention or removal until a criminal case concluded through dismissal with prejudice, acquittal, or judgment. The government opposed dismissal with prejudice, arguing that there was no bad faith or prosecutorial harassment, and that dismissal under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should ordinarily be without prejudice. Defense counsel initially moved for dismissal with prejudice but withdrew the motion as unripe, and the district court ultimately dismissed the indictment with prejudice after ICE notified it of the impending removal.The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order dismissing the indictment with prejudice, holding that the circumstances did not meet the high bar required for such a dismissal. The court clarified that dismissal with prejudice under Rule 48(a) is appropriate only in cases of prosecutorial bad faith, harassment, or when dismissal without prejudice would create a patent threat of unfairness to the defendant—none of which were present here. The First Circuit also vacated the district court’s standing order and its modification, remanding with instructions to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. View "US v. Pena de la Cruz" on Justia Law

Malik Parsons was indicted for his role in a drug-trafficking operation, specifically for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute significant quantities of fentanyl and cocaine. Law enforcement surveilled an apartment in Mansfield, Massachusetts, which was not leased to either Parsons or his codefendant, but which both accessed regularly and used to store, package, and distribute drugs. The investigation included video and physical surveillance, GPS data, and searches that yielded drugs, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms. Parsons was not present during the final search, but evidence tied him to the apartment and its operations.Following indictment, Parsons’s codefendant pled guilty to several counts, while Parsons proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. At trial, the government presented extensive evidence, including testimony from a law enforcement officer who characterized the apartment as a "stash house" used by both defendants. The jury found Parsons guilty on the conspiracy and possession counts. The court sentenced him to eighty-four months in prison, applying sentencing enhancements for firearm possession and declining a reduction for being a zero-point offender.On appeal, Parsons challenged both his conviction and sentence before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He argued that the district court improperly admitted a law enforcement officer’s lay opinion regarding his culpability and erred in its sentencing calculations. The First Circuit held that, even if the officer's opinion testimony was improper, any error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found no error in the application of the firearm enhancement or the denial of the zero-point-offender reduction, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Parsons constructively possessed the firearms. The First Circuit affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. View "US v. Parsons" on Justia Law

The appellant participated in a drug smuggling operation, originating from Venezuela and intending to transfer cocaine to another vessel at a prearranged location off the coast of Puerto Rico. When the rendezvous failed, the vessel, carrying three individuals and over 600 kilograms of cocaine, headed toward Puerto Rico, where it was intercepted by local and federal authorities. The appellant, who admitted to being the vessel's captain, was arrested along with the others.A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico indicted the appellant on four drug trafficking counts. He pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. The United States Probation Office prepared a presentence report, applying a sentencing enhancement for his role as captain and recommending other adjustments. The government and the appellant filed sentencing memoranda, with the government supporting a sentence of 135 months and the appellant requesting 84 months and raising objections to the captain enhancement and the lack of a minor participant reduction. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico imposed a 135-month sentence and five years of supervised release, accepting the government’s recommendations. The appellant appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. It upheld the application of the captain enhancement, finding no error in the district court’s interpretation of the relevant guidelines. However, the government conceded, and the court agreed, that the district court should reconsider the denial of a minor participant role adjustment in light of recent First Circuit decisions. The court also rejected the appellant’s claims regarding sentencing disparities and failure to consider mitigating factors. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the minor participant issue. View "US v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

A medical institution in Puerto Rico borrowed over $10 million from a bank in 1984 to build a hospital, but soon disputes arose regarding the loan. The bank claimed the institution defaulted, while the institution asserted the bank failed to disburse funds as required. Litigation and bankruptcy proceedings followed. In 1991, the parties settled, but the terms of that settlement—whether the debt was split into interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing portions—remained contested. Over the next decades, the loan changed hands, and in 2013 the institution filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again. The current loan-holder claimed a significantly higher outstanding balance than the institution believed was owed, due in part to differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and subsequent bankruptcy plan.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico previously addressed these disputes. It issued orders requiring the institution to demonstrate, with evidence, that the 1991 agreement created a non-interest-bearing note and that it had made payments in accordance with the bankruptcy plan. The court denied discovery, required summary judgment briefing, and ultimately issued an order with minimal analysis, granting the loan-holder’s motion to dismiss and denying the institution’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s reasoning was ambiguous, referencing both summary judgment and pleading standards, and did not clearly identify the basis for its decision.On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirmed, concluding the bankruptcy plan did not incorporate the 1991 bifurcated note arrangement. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, found the bankruptcy court’s order insufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit vacated the lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to clarify its reasoning, identify the applicable legal standards, and consider whether summary judgment or further fact-finding is appropriate. View "Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2000 on a visa and overstayed its expiration in 2001. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his deportation would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his two U.S. citizen children. His main argument was that, if removed, he would not be able to provide his son with necessary asthma medication. He provided evidence of his son's medical history, his own role as the primary financial provider, and concerns about affordability and availability of medical care in El Salvador.An Immigration Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the application for cancellation of removal. The judge found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his son's asthma constituted a serious medical condition or that, even if it did, treatment and medication would be unavailable or unaffordable in El Salvador. The judge also found insufficient evidence regarding the cost and availability of asthma medications, as well as the family's ability to afford them if relocated. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision without issuing a separate opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, treating the Immigration Judge’s opinion as the final agency action. Applying a deferential standard of review, the court examined whether the agency correctly applied the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard to the facts. The court held that the Immigration Judge properly applied agency precedent and weighed all relevant factors in the aggregate. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to meet his burden and that the evidence did not rise to the statutory hardship level. Accordingly, the First Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Espinoza Benitez v. Blanche" on Justia Law