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

A group of medical students attended the University of Science, Arts and Technology (USAT), an international medical school based in Montserrat. USAT was licensed in Montserrat and, for years, was listed in the International Medical Education Directory, allowing its graduates to seek U.S. medical licensure. After a volcanic eruption in 2007, USAT began offering classes online and at alternative sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. In 2018, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) changed its policy, restricting certification to students educated in the country where the school was authorized. USAT students who took courses outside Montserrat after 2018 were no longer eligible for ECFMG certification, affecting their ability to obtain U.S. medical licenses. The students alleged that USAT misrepresented its accreditation and educational legitimacy, leading them to pay substantial tuition under false pretenses.The students filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting federal RICO claims, as well as Puerto Rico law claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the students failed to establish a “pattern of racketeering activity” as required under RICO, and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the students did not present sufficient evidence of closed- or open-ended continuity to establish a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. As a result, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the RICO claim and its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. View "Pena-Torres v. University of Science, Arts and Tech" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal relief programs such as the EIDL and PPP were implemented to assist small businesses. In Puerto Rico, a scheme led by Manfred Pentzke-Lemus fraudulently obtained such loans using fabricated documents and kickbacks. Jayson Pastrana-Román, owner of a food kiosk, became involved after Pentzke contacted him and assisted with loan applications. Pastrana allowed co-conspirators to alter his documents and apply for loans in his name, resulting in approved loans and kickbacks paid to Pentzke. Pastrana also recruited his brother and friends into the scheme, relaying instructions and collecting their kickback payments, though he did not retain these funds.A federal grand jury indicted Pastrana on ten counts, including wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. He initially planned to go to trial but later pleaded guilty to all counts. At sentencing in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, the court determined Pastrana acted as a "manager" in the conspiracy, applying a three-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The court declined to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, finding his acceptance was not timely and he had not admitted to his full role as recruiter and intermediary. The court imposed a 33-month concurrent sentence for all counts, below the calculated Guidelines range.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Pastrana challenged the sentencing enhancements and denial of the acceptance reduction. The First Circuit held the district court did not err in applying the managerial role adjustment but did clearly err in denying the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, as Pastrana had admitted relevant conduct and timely notified the government of his intent to plead guilty. The court vacated Pastrana’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "US v. Pastrana-Roman" on Justia Law

A union representing graduate student workers at a university filed grievances after certain doctoral students working as research assistants in the psychology department were excluded from the weekly lists of union-represented employees. The union asserted that these students, who conducted lab-based research under faculty supervision and received funding, fit the definition of "Research Assistant" under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and should be included in the bargaining unit. The university argued that these students were not statutory "employees" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and therefore not eligible for union representation or inclusion in the bargaining unit.The grievances proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found that the psychology doctoral students qualified as "Research Assistants" under the CBA based on its language, the parties’ history, and past practices, regardless of the funding source. The arbitrator ordered the university to include these students in the bargaining unit and provide lost benefits. The university challenged the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing the arbitrator exceeded her authority and violated public policy. The district court denied the university’s motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award, granting costs but not attorney’s fees to the union.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award de novo. The First Circuit held that the dispute was substantively arbitrable, the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA was plausible and drew from its essence, and the award did not violate public policy. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, allowing the arbitration award to stand. View "President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Graduate Students Union - UAW, Local 5118" on Justia Law

A financial trustee acting on behalf of bondholders filed a proof of claim for $8.5 billion in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy-like restructuring proceedings. The claim was based on allegations that the Commonwealth had impaired statutory and constitutional rights that were intended to protect bondholders in connection with revenue bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), a public utility corporation. The Commonwealth had enacted laws that, according to the trustee, limited PREPA’s ability to set rates and satisfy its bond obligations, thereby breaching a statutory covenant not to impair PREPA’s ability to repay the bonds. The trustee characterized these statutory protections as a material inducement for investors to purchase the bonds.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, acting as the Title III court under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), had previously confirmed the Commonwealth’s Plan of Adjustment. This Plan created separate classes of claims, including one (Class 64) for claims subordinated under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), which covers damages “arising from the purchase or sale” of a debtor’s security. The trustee’s claim was classified in Class 64, which receives no distribution, rather than as a general unsecured claim (Class 58), which would have allowed a partial recovery. The district court held that the trustee’s claim was properly subordinated under § 510(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that § 510(b) applies to the trustee’s claim because the damages sought arose from the purchase of PREPA’s revenue bonds, induced by the alleged statutory protections. The court also rejected procedural and constitutional avoidance arguments, and found that any challenge to the level of subordination was waived. View "FOMB v. SIG Structured Products, LLC" on Justia Law

A police officer in Somerville, Massachusetts was terminated from his position following alleged misconduct connected to his use of an informant, which ultimately resulted in the informant attacking a third party. The officer did not initially disclose all relevant information during the investigation of the attack. After further internal investigation and public accusations, including statements made by city officials to the press, the officer was officially terminated. He challenged his termination by both pursuing arbitration under the police union’s collective bargaining agreement and by filing a civil suit, alleging his termination was retaliatory and violated his constitutional rights, as well as state law regarding interference with advantageous relations. While the lawsuit was pending, an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement but denied him back pay. Following this, the mayor placed the officer on paid administrative leave, which affected his ability to earn overtime and additional compensation.The case was first filed in Middlesex Superior Court and then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district judge allowed the officer to seek damages at trial not only for the termination but also for being placed on paid leave after reinstatement, even though the officer never amended his complaint to include this post-arbitration event as a basis for liability. The district court permitted the jury to award damages for both the termination and the paid-leave decision, over the defendants’ repeated objections.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the district court erred in allowing the jury to award damages based on the paid-leave decision. The appellate court held that, absent an amended complaint or the defendants’ consent, new factual bases for liability such as the paid-leave decision could not be considered at trial. The First Circuit reversed the damages awarded for the paid-leave decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "DiFronzo v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

A psychiatrist in Massachusetts operated his own private practice and, between 2015 and 2018, submitted fraudulent bills to a range of private and public health insurers, including Medicare and several major insurance companies. The fraudulent conduct included billing for over a thousand sessions at times when either he or the purported patient was out of the country. When insurers began to scrutinize his claims and requested additional billing records, he delayed responses and provided falsified records to support his claims. Eventually, at least one insurer halted payments pending his compliance, and another made payments contingent on preauthorization. Following federal investigation, the psychiatrist was indicted and, in October 2023, convicted by a jury on fourteen out of fifteen counts related to the fraud.In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the sentencing judge calculated his guidelines range based on a loss amount equating to the total billed—about $19 million—which resulted in a twenty-level sentencing enhancement. He was sentenced to ninety-nine months on the main counts, with additional concurrent sentences, and was ordered to pay approximately $6.5 million in restitution and a similar amount in criminal forfeiture. The defendant challenged both the intended loss calculation used for sentencing and the restitution amount.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court applied a burden-shifting framework, allowing the billed amount as prima facie evidence of intended loss, and found that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to show he intended to obtain less than he billed, even considering his status as an in-network provider. The appellate court also rejected his argument that restitution should be offset by claims for legitimate, unpaid services, holding that such offsets are not appropriate in the context of criminal restitution. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions in all respects. View "US v. Kinrys" on Justia Law

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