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

The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Roberto Clemente, a renowned Puerto Rican baseball player, and two corporations they control. The dispute centers on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s use of Clemente’s name and image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags. Proceeds from these items were designated to fund a new “Roberto Clemente Sports District,” a public project that would replace an earlier initiative, Ciudad Deportiva, originally founded by Clemente. The plaintiffs allege that they hold trademark rights in Clemente’s name and that the Commonwealth’s actions were unauthorized and caused public confusion, with many mistakenly believing the Clemente family benefited financially from the program.The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth, several high-ranking officials, and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority. Their claims included trademark infringement, false association, false advertising, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commonwealth and the Authority moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions, dismissing all federal claims on immunity and merits grounds, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over non-federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Authority and all claims against the Commonwealth and its officials in their official capacities. It also affirmed dismissal of the false advertising and takings claims. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false endorsement, and dilution against the Commonwealth officials in their personal capacities, holding those claims were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at this stage, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery for an offense committed at age 17, resulting in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole under Massachusetts law. Decades later, following developments in constitutional law, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that life-without-parole sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional and ordered that such sentences be modified to life with the possibility of parole. As a result, the petitioner’s sentence was changed; he became parole eligible, was granted parole, and was released.After this modification, the petitioner sought to file a second habeas corpus petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that this petition was “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and thus subject to its “gatekeeping” requirements, concluding that the addition of parole eligibility did not constitute a new judgment for purposes of federal habeas law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the sentence modification constituted a new judgment. The court held that the change from life without parole to life with parole eligibility was a material change, making the sentence a new judgment under federal law. The court reasoned that, because the petitioner’s current custody was authorized by this new judgment, his second-in-time habeas petition did not trigger the restrictions of § 2244(b).Therefore, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the petitioner need not obtain pre-authorization to file his habeas petition, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Donovan v. Massachusetts Parole Board" on Justia Law

Two long-time residents of Nashua, New Hampshire, sought to fly various flags on a designated "Citizen Flag Pole" located at City Hall Plaza. The City had previously allowed private citizens and groups to fly flags representing diverse causes and cultural events on this pole, with minimal oversight and no substantive review of flag content. After one of the plaintiffs flew a "Save Women's Sports" flag, the City received complaints, revoked permission, and removed the flag, stating that it was discriminatory toward the transgender community. Subsequently, the City adopted a written policy in 2022 asserting that the flagpole’s use constituted government speech and reserving the right to deny flags not aligned with City policies.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent viewpoint-based denials of flag applications. Before the City filed its opposition, it enacted a new policy to exercise exclusive government control over the flagpoles. The magistrate judge recommended denying the injunction, finding the flag program to be government speech, and the district court adopted that recommendation and denied relief. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion and legal conclusions de novo. Applying the government speech test from Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the court held that Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole program was not government speech, but rather operated as a forum for private expression. Because Nashua conceded that, absent a government speech determination, its actions constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination, the First Circuit reversed the district court. The case was remanded with instructions to enter interim declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Scaer v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, three veterans residing at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea, Massachusetts, died after contracting COVID-19. The personal representatives of the veterans’ estates filed suit against several Massachusetts state officials responsible for the facility, alleging violations of the veterans’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint asserted that the officials failed to protect residents from COVID-19 by not implementing adequate safety protocols and maintaining inhumane living conditions, including lack of sanitation, improper restraint of residents, and exposure to illegal drugs.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the complaint after the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged individual involvement by any defendant in the purported misconduct regarding COVID-19, and failed to provide details showing how the named veterans were specifically harmed by the living conditions. The court also found no clearly established legal authority placing the officials on notice that their conduct would violate the veterans’ rights, thus concluding qualified immunity applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The First Circuit held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants directly caused the harm suffered by the veterans, nor did it sufficiently invoke exceptions to that requirement. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law and thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Terenzio v. Urena" on Justia Law

Congress enacted a law in 2025 that withholds Medicaid funding for one year from certain abortion providers that meet four criteria, which in effect covers most Planned Parenthood affiliates and two other organizations. The statute also withholds funding from subsidiaries, successors, clinics, and “affiliates” of such entities, even if those affiliates do not themselves meet all four criteria. Some Planned Parenthood entities qualified for defunding under the law (“Qualifying Members”), while others did not (“Non-Qualifying Members”), but the latter still risked losing funding due to the ambiguous “affiliate” provision. Concerned about the impact on their ability to provide healthcare, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a Qualifying Member, and a Non-Qualifying Member sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging the law was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, imposed unconstitutional conditions on their right of association, and violated equal protection.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order and then preliminary injunctions, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on all three claims. The court reasoned that the law punished Planned Parenthood in violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause, impermissibly conditioned Medicaid funding on disassociation from other affiliates in violation of the First Amendment, and failed equal protection review because it targeted Planned Parenthood for its associations. The government appealed these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s orders. The court held that the statute did not inflict punishment as understood in bill of attainder case law, but instead established new conditions prospectively on Medicaid funding. The court also held that the “affiliate” provision is best read to cover only entities under common corporate control, avoiding constitutional problems, and thus does not burden associational rights. Finally, the court found that the law is subject only to rational basis review and is rationally related to Congress’s objectives. The preliminary injunctions were vacated and the case remanded. View "Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

In March 1997, James Garrey was involved in a fatal altercation at a bar in Franklin, Massachusetts, where he stabbed and killed Corey Skog following a dispute. Garrey, who is white, was later convicted of first-degree murder by a Massachusetts jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. During jury selection, the prosecution exercised a peremptory strike to remove a minority-race juror, Juror 6-7. Garrey objected, arguing the strike was improper and motivated by race, referencing Batson v. Kentucky and Powers v. Ohio. The trial judge allowed the strike after the prosecutor cited the juror’s occupation as a guidance counselor as the reason, not her race.Garrey appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), asserting that the trial judge erred by accepting the prosecutor’s justification and by referencing the lack of minority participants in the trial. The SJC affirmed the conviction, finding the prosecutor’s explanation sufficient and not pretextual, and that the trial judge did not improperly rely on racial considerations. Garrey’s subsequent motions for a new trial in state court were denied.He then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging Batson and Powers errors and unreasonable factual findings by the SJC. The District Court denied relief, concluding the SJC’s application of federal law and findings were not unreasonable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court. The First Circuit held that the SJC did not unreasonably determine the facts or misapply clearly established federal law under Batson or Powers, and found the prosecutor’s rationale and the trial court’s process constitutionally sufficient. The judgment denying habeas relief was affirmed. View "Garrey v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority and a former member of the relevant labor union. In 2016, he attempted to resign from the union and objected to the continued deduction of union dues from his wages, arguing that compelled dues for non-bargaining activities violated his First Amendment rights. The employer and union, acting under Puerto Rican law and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, denied his requests, continued to deduct dues, and the plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the initial proceedings. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and invalidated mandatory union payments by nonmembers in the public sector, the employer and union ceased deducting dues from the plaintiff. The union then sought to deposit the amount withheld after his resignation, plus interest and nominal damages, with the court. The District Court ultimately granted the union’s request to deposit funds and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as moot, reasoning that he had received all requested relief. The plaintiff’s subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied, with the court stating he was entitled to the deposited funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The First Circuit found that the plaintiff was entitled to the funds deposited by the union, rejecting the argument that there was no judgment awarding him monetary relief. However, the court determined that the issue of whether the plaintiff could seek prevailing party attorneys’ fees—potentially affecting mootness—had not been fully addressed below. The First Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings on that issue, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Cruz v. UIA" on Justia Law

John Kenney, a resident of Florida, sought to obtain a retail cannabis license in Rhode Island as a social equity applicant. He argued that, as a recipient of a social equity cannabis license in the District of Columbia and someone with nonviolent marijuana convictions in Maryland and Nevada, he would otherwise qualify under Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act. Kenney challenged two provisions of the Act: the requirement that all license applicants must be Rhode Island residents or entities controlled by Rhode Island residents, and the definition of “social equity applicant,” which, according to Kenney, only recognizes nonviolent marijuana offenses eligible for expungement under Rhode Island law.After Kenney filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 6, 2025, the district court dismissed the case on ripeness grounds, reasoning that the Cannabis Control Commission had not yet promulgated final rules for retail cannabis licenses, and thus the court could not adjudicate the claims. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Kenney appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. Following the Commission’s issuance of final rules for retail cannabis licenses, effective May 1, 2025, the appellate court determined that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of ripeness. The First Circuit held that Kenney’s claims were not moot and that he had standing to pursue them. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the merits of Kenney’s constitutional challenges, instructing the district court to rule at least forty-five days before the Commission issues retail licenses. View "Kenney v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law

A cannabis entrepreneur based in California sought to challenge specific provisions of Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act, which governs the licensing of retail cannabis businesses. The Act requires applicants for all retail cannabis business licenses to be Rhode Island residents or entities with a principal place of business in Rhode Island and majority ownership by Rhode Island residents. It also establishes criteria for “social equity applicants,” reserving certain licenses for individuals with past marijuana-related convictions eligible for expungement or for those who have resided in disproportionately impacted areas. The plaintiff, not a Rhode Island resident, intended to apply for a license but alleged that these requirements violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the plaintiff’s action without prejudice, concluding that her claims were not ripe for judicial review. The court cited several cases but provided no substantive analysis, noting that the Commission had yet to promulgate final rules and regulations for licensing and declining to speculate on the timeline for their adoption. This order was issued just before the public comment period on the proposed regulations closed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing on ripeness grounds. The appellate court determined that the claims were ripe, not moot, and that the plaintiff had standing to bring the suit. The court found that the plaintiff faced imminent harm under the statutory requirements and that judicial intervention was warranted. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims, instructing the lower court to issue its rulings before the planned issuance of retail cannabis licenses. View "Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law