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

The defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in Massachusetts on three counts: being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and two counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The first drug count was based on drugs found during his arrest, and the second on drugs found at his residence during a search. He moved to suppress evidence seized from his home, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the district court denied the motion, finding the search was conducted under a valid warrant and in good faith. He also sought dismissal of the firearm charge, claiming the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but that motion was denied. He then pleaded guilty to all counts.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts grouped the convictions for sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The presentence report applied several enhancements, including one for being a career offender based on prior convictions. The defendant objected, arguing he had only one qualifying conviction and that a 2008 Massachusetts conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine should not count, because the definition of “controlled substance” had changed under federal law. The district court rejected his objections, but stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had accepted his arguments. The court ultimately imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 96 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the career offender enhancement because the relevant Massachusetts conviction did not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines at the time of federal sentencing, since the substance at issue was no longer federally controlled. Nevertheless, the error was harmless because the district court made clear it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "US v. Fulcar" on Justia Law

A Christian church in Maine operates a private K–12 school that adheres closely to its religious beliefs, including requiring students and staff to conform to a statement of faith and specific codes of conduct and dress. The school is willing to admit students of any background if their families support its religious philosophy, but it maintains policies that exclude students who are openly gay or transgender and requires employees to be co-religionists. The school sought to participate in Maine’s tuition-assistance program, which allows public funds for private education in certain circumstances, but did not apply because of state nondiscrimination laws it believed would conflict with its religious practices.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the school’s motion for a permanent injunction against several provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), finding either no case or controversy or no constitutional violation. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after the parties stipulated to final judgment based on the preliminary injunction record, reserving all appellate rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the MHRA’s rules on employment, religious expression, religious nondiscrimination, and sexual orientation/gender identity nondiscrimination violate the First Amendment as applied to the school. The court held there was no case or controversy regarding the employment rule due to existing carveouts. It affirmed the district court’s rejection of the school’s challenges to the religious nondiscrimination and sexual orientation/gender identity rules, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court determined that the religious expression rule violates the school’s free-exercise rights and must be enjoined as applied to the school. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the religious expression rule. View "Crosspoint Church v. Makin" on Justia Law

After the 2020 mayoral election in Maricao, Puerto Rico, the Popular Democratic Party candidate, Wilfredo Ruiz-Feliciano, assumed office, replacing the New Progressive Party incumbent. Odette López Collazo, a longstanding NPP member who had served as Internal Auditor since 1994, was not reappointed by the new mayor. López Collazo alleged that her non-reappointment was due solely to her political affiliation and constituted political discrimination in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She also asserted related claims against other municipal officials regarding the failure to pay out her accrued leave, but only the claim against Ruiz-Feliciano for political discrimination remained at issue in this appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of Ruiz-Feliciano. The court concluded that First Amendment protections against political discrimination did not apply to a decision not to hire or reappoint, and further reasoned that because the Internal Auditor position was a “trust” position under Puerto Rico law, the mayor could hire and fire at will, including for political reasons. López Collazo moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and then sought partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) to appeal. After resolving procedural questions regarding finality, all claims but the political discrimination claim against Ruiz-Feliciano were dismissed with prejudice, and the appeal proceeded.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Court of Appeals held that First Amendment protections do apply to a failure to hire or reappoint a public employee, and that legislative classification of a position as a “trust” position is not dispositive in determining whether political affiliation is an appropriate requirement. The appellate court vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lopez Collazo v. Ruiz-Feliciano" on Justia Law

The case centers on Tyler Jon Taker, a resident of Maine, who became subject to a state court order for protection from abuse, which he agreed to. This order prohibited him from possessing firearms and certain other weapons until March 22, 2026. While the protective order was in effect, Taker applied for a concealed handgun permit, but his application was denied by the local police chief due to the existence of the order. Taker then filed a federal lawsuit against various federal, state, and local officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from federal and state statutes that prohibit individuals with certain convictions or protective orders from possessing firearms. He also sought damages against the police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial of his concealed carry permit.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed Taker’s claims. The court found that Taker was not a law-abiding citizen due to his prior felony drug conviction and that the statutes prohibiting his possession of firearms were consistent with historical tradition and thus constitutional. The District Court did not specify whether it dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction but appeared to rule on the merits. Taker appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Taker lacked Article III standing to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief because the protective order itself independently barred him from possessing firearms, so the relief sought would not redress his alleged injury. As for the damages claim against the police chief, the court found that the chief was entitled to qualified immunity because Taker’s constitutional rights were not clearly established in this context. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the damages claim, vacated the dismissal of the declaratory and injunctive claims, and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction. View "Taker v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Two individuals attended a demonstration in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on May 1, 2018, where they allege that officers of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau used excessive force against them, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. In April 2019, they filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting violations of their constitutional rights and seeking both injunctive and monetary relief. The suits named the then-Governor and other officials and employees of the Commonwealth, including police officers, as defendants, with claims brought against some defendants in their personal capacities.During this time, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was undergoing bankruptcy-like restructuring under Title III of PROMESA, and, in 2022, the Title III court confirmed a Plan of Adjustment, which discharged certain claims against the Commonwealth and enjoined pursuit of those claims. The district court stayed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit pending a determination of whether the Plan discharged their claims. On September 30, 2025, the Title III court held that the Plan did not discharge personal-capacity claims against Commonwealth officials or employees, thus allowing the plaintiffs to proceed. The Financial Oversight and Management Board appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the Title III court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that the discharge and related injunction in the confirmed Plan of Adjustment do not apply to claims against Commonwealth officers or employees sued in their personal capacities. The court reasoned that discharging such claims would amount to a non-consensual third-party release, which the Plan expressly does not provide. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the Title III court’s decision in full. View "Hernandez Zorilla v. FOMB" on Justia Law

Four residents of Worcester County, Massachusetts alleged that the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) secretly recorded their phone conversations with officers and stored the recordings in an online database. They claimed the MSP used these recordings to propose charges in at least 181 criminal cases but did not disclose the existence of the recordings to prosecuting agencies. The plaintiffs, none of whom alleged pending charges or convictions related to these recordings, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting violations of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act (later voluntarily dismissed) and their federal constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed voluntary dismissal of the state law claim but denied the Superintendent’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim. The district court found that sovereign immunity did not bar the official-capacity suit under the Ex parte Young exception, as the plaintiffs sought only prospective relief for alleged ongoing violations of federal law. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had standing, reasoning that the MSP’s counsel had not unequivocally stated that the challenged recording and withholding practices had ceased or that all recordings had been disclosed.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the standing determination. The First Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury in fact with sufficient concreteness or imminence to establish standing for prospective relief. Their allegations were found to be generalized and lacked any indication that they personally faced a substantial risk of future harm. As a result, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the Superintendent’s motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings. View "Courtemanche v. Noble" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a member of the New Progressive Party and a former System Technician Coordinator for the Municipality of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, alleged that after a new mayor from the Popular Democratic Party took office, he was subjected to politically motivated adverse employment actions. Specifically, he claimed his server access was revoked, he received a poor employment evaluation, and his work environment became intolerable, all of which led to his constructive resignation. He asserted that these actions were taken because of his political affiliation.Following discovery, several individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims against them in their individual capacities, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of political discrimination under the First Amendment and raising a qualified immunity defense. Importantly, they did not address the claims against them in their official capacities, the municipality, or the equal protection and Puerto Rico law claims. The plaintiff opposed the motion, but the district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granted summary judgment for the individual defendants and sua sponte dismissed the entire case with prejudice, citing waiver and a lack of evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on waiver alone and in concluding there was no evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony created genuine disputes of material fact regarding the involvement and knowledge of the defendants. The court also held that the district court improperly dismissed claims against parties who had not moved for summary judgment without giving the plaintiff notice. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Arocho-Rodriguez v. Roldan-Concepcion" on Justia Law

A Maine resident who suffers from a rare and incurable form of blood cancer was a long-time customer of an electric utility that uses smart meters emitting radiofrequency signals to track electricity usage. After the utility received regulatory approval, it allowed customers to keep analog meters for an additional fee, citing health and safety concerns that had been raised but not resolved by the state public utilities commission. The resident, concerned that radiofrequency radiation might worsen his cancer symptoms, requested a waiver of the opt-out fee, supported by a letter from his oncologist. The utility denied the waiver, and after the resident refused to pay the fee, his electric service was disconnected.The resident sued in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. He also claimed the fee constituted an unlawful surcharge under the ADA. The district court denied the utility’s initial motion to dismiss but, after discovery, granted summary judgment in favor of the utility. The district court limited the resident’s expert witnesses to general, not specific, causation testimony, and excluded the opinions of his treating physicians as untimely disclosed expert testimony. The court found a lack of admissible evidence connecting smart meter radiation to the resident’s health, and held the opt-out fee was not an unlawful surcharge.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. It held that, without timely, admissible expert evidence of specific causation linking the smart meter’s radiation to a non-speculative risk of harm to the resident’s health, the resident’s claims could not survive summary judgment. The court also held that the opt-out fee was not a discriminatory surcharge because waiver of the fee was not required under the ADA. View "Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company" on Justia Law

In this case, four police officers in Puerto Rico pursued two young men suspected of engaging in a drug deal. One officer shot 17-year-old Calep Carvajal in the back as he fled on a bicycle. Defendant José Cartagena apprehended and handcuffed Carvajal, and was accused of pistol-whipping him while he was on the ground. Additional assaults allegedly occurred during and after transport to the police station. Cartagena later filed a false report about the incident and lied to a juvenile prosecutor about Carvajal’s injuries. Federal charges were brought under various statutes, including civil rights violations and obstruction of justice.After a grand jury indictment, three officers pleaded guilty. Cartagena initially entered a plea but withdrew it and went to trial in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. He was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and asserted that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the prosecution introduced a hearsay statement from the victim, who was not available for cross-examination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It found the evidence sufficient to support convictions on most counts but determined that the admission of the victim’s testimonial hearsay statement, offered through a government medical expert, violated Cartagena’s Confrontation Clause rights as to the count involving the alleged pistol-whipping during the arrest. The court vacated the conviction on that count, affirmed the convictions on the other counts, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "US v. Cartagena" on Justia Law

Two former police officers sued their employer, the Puerto Rico Police Department, alleging illegal retaliation after one reported age discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the other testified in support. The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, they suffered adverse employment actions such as dangerous shift changes, loss of duties, and fabricated complaints. The challenged conduct primarily occurred after Puerto Rico filed for financial reorganization under PROMESA, a federal statute enacted in response to the Commonwealth’s fiscal crisis.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the case while Puerto Rico’s reorganization plan was pending in the Title III court. After the reorganization plan’s "Effective Date" passed, and while the plaintiffs’ suit was ongoing, the Department asserted that the claims had been discharged under the plan because the plaintiffs had not timely filed proofs of claim. The District Court agreed, permanently stayed the case, and enjoined the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, finding that the claims must have arisen at least in part before the plan’s Effective Date since the suit was filed prior to that date. The District Court did not address the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument or their contention that post-petition claims were not dischargeable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims qualified as administrative expense claims under PROMESA (via incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code), and because the plaintiffs did not timely file such claims before the administrative claims bar date, they were discharged by the plan. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument, finding no inconsistency in the Department’s litigation positions. The First Circuit’s judgment affirmed the permanent stay and injunction. View "Villalobos-Santana v. PR Police Department" on Justia Law