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

A witness was subpoenaed to testify in a federal criminal trial in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. After answering a few questions, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, refusing to answer further questions from the government. The government then sought and obtained an order from the District Court granting her statutory immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003, which precluded the use of her compelled testimony or information derived from it against her in any criminal case, except for prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or failing to comply with the order. Despite this grant of immunity and a direct order from the court, the witness continued to refuse to testify.Following her refusal, the District Court found her in criminal contempt and issued an order accordingly. Her attorney argued that the statutory immunity provided was not as broad as her Fifth Amendment privilege, specifically asserting that the immunity did not protect her from potential prosecution for perjury based on her compelled testimony. The District Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the immunity was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege as it protected against self-incrimination for prior acts but did not extend to potential perjury in the immunized testimony itself.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s criminal contempt order for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. The First Circuit held that the statutory immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 was indeed coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, except for future perjury or false statements given under immunity. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order of criminal contempt. View "United States v. McBreairty" on Justia Law

A man was convicted of sex trafficking a minor after police located the missing child in an apartment where he was staying. The police had responded to a missing persons report filed by the minor’s father, who believed the child was endangered. Investigators traced the minor’s Snapchat activity to an IP address at the apartment and, after gaining access from a tenant in the building, entered the unlocked apartment briefly to ask about the missing child. During this encounter, the defendant emerged from a bedroom. Subsequent evidence, including text messages from a phone recovered from the minor, supported the prosecution’s case.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence related to the police entry and admitted several text messages and emails as evidence. During jury selection, the court temporarily sealed the courtroom while questioning potential jurors about sensitive matters, with defense counsel expressly stating there was no objection. At the close of trial, the court mistakenly allowed alternate jurors into the deliberation room but promptly removed them and instructed the jury to disregard any statements by the alternates and restart deliberations if needed. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the police entry was justified under the emergency-aid exception, the temporary courtroom sealing did not violate the public trial right due to waiver, and the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion. The court also found no reversible error in the alternate juror incident, as there was no showing of prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Rowell" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted under federal law for possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The predicate offense was a 2010 conviction under Maine law for simple assault against his then-wife, to which he pleaded no contest after the original charge of "Domestic Violence Assault" was reduced. Several years later, he was charged federally after he admitted to police that he owned a firearm. At his federal trial, he stipulated to many elements of the offense but sought to introduce evidence that he believed, based on his plea arrangement and representations by the prosecution and his attorney in state court, that he was legally allowed to possess a firearm.Initially, the United States District Court for the District of Maine convicted him, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated that conviction after the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which clarified the knowledge requirement for firearms offenses. On remand, he was retried and again convicted, but a First Circuit panel vacated the conviction due to errors in jury instructions. Sitting en banc, the First Circuit clarified the applicable knowledge standard, vacated the conviction, and remanded for another trial. On further remand, the District Court denied his Second Amendment challenge to the statute, excluded his proffered evidence regarding his belief about firearm possession, and again convicted him after a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in United States v. Rahimi. The court also held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the defendant’s belief about the lawfulness of his conduct, as the statute does not require knowledge that firearm possession is unlawful, only knowledge of the facts that make one ineligible. The conviction and denial of the motion to dismiss were affirmed. View "US v. Minor" on Justia Law

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