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

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

A group of Maine lobstermen challenged a state rule requiring all federally permitted lobster fishers to install electronic tracking devices on their vessels, which transmit GPS location data whenever the vessels are in the water. This rule was adopted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) to comply with an addendum to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s American Lobster Fishery Management Plan. The addendum aimed to reduce risks to North Atlantic right whales, improve fishery data, and support regulatory enforcement. The tracking devices must remain powered and transmit data at all times, including when vessels are docked or used for personal purposes.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, arguing that the MDMR Rule violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, as well as equal protection and state administrative law. The district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Fourth Amendment because the lobster fishery is a closely regulated industry and the rule was not unreasonably invasive. The court noted several concessions by the parties, including that the GPS tracking constituted a search, that the lobster industry is closely regulated, and that the search was administrative in nature.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the lobster industry is a closely regulated industry and that the administrative search exception, as articulated in New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), applied. The court found that the MDMR Rule satisfied the Burger test: it served a substantial government interest, warrantless searches were necessary to the regulatory scheme, and the rule provided a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Thompson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

During the 2023–2024 academic year, students at a private university in Massachusetts engaged in a series of pro-Palestinian protests following violence in the Middle East. The protests included rallies, walkouts, chalk messages, and an encampment near the campus Hillel center. Some Jewish and Israeli students reported feeling unsafe or unwelcome, and a few specific incidents were alleged, such as being blocked from campus areas or subjected to hostile remarks. The university responded by revising protest policies, suspending student groups, and eventually clearing the encampment, but did not discipline all protestors or end the demonstrations immediately.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, which alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and state law, for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged actionable harassment or that the university was deliberately indifferent to any such harassment. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that most of the protestors’ conduct constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not amount to actionable harassment under Title VI. The court further found that the university was not deliberately indifferent, as it took a series of escalating actions in response to the protests. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Ku Klux Klan Act because they did not plausibly allege a conspiracy with the purpose of depriving Jewish or Israeli students of their rights. The dismissal of the state-law claims was affirmed, and the court found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend the complaint. View "StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. MIT" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging an executive order that denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and whose mothers are present in the country either unlawfully or only temporarily. The organizations alleged that they have members who are expecting children affected by the order, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that the plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims, and that the equitable factors favored granting relief. It issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the executive order against the plaintiffs and their members, but not against nonparties. The government appealed the scope and propriety of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal issues and clear error review of factual findings. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. However, the First Circuit vacated the injunction to the extent that it ran directly against the President and the agencies themselves, holding that injunctive relief should be limited to agency officials. The court affirmed the injunction as applied to the organizations’ members who are likely to be harmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, issued in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States after its effective date if their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and their mothers are either unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Plaintiffs include individual immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and a coalition of states and local governments. They allege that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Order.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary injunctions to both sets of plaintiffs, finding they were “exceedingly likely” to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a). The injunctions barred federal agencies and officials from enforcing the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and, in the case brought by the states, issued a nationwide injunction to provide complete relief. The government appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of the injunctions, and the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs have Article III standing and are likely to succeed on the merits. The First Circuit held that the Executive Order’s denial of birthright citizenship to children born in the United States under the specified circumstances violates both the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), as interpreted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part, vacated them in part as to agency defendants, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Doe v. Trump" on Justia Law

A group of out-of-state pig farmers and a pork processor challenged a Massachusetts law that prohibits the use of certain confinement methods for breeding pigs (specifically, gestation crates) and bans the sale in Massachusetts of pork products derived from pigs confined in such a manner. The plaintiffs, who operate outside Massachusetts and use these confinement methods, argued that the law discriminates against out-of-state producers and is preempted by federal statutes. The law was enacted by ballot initiative and became enforceable after the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, including those based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, preemption by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Import-Export Clause. The court allowed the dormant Commerce Clause claim to proceed, but ultimately granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on that claim as well, after severing a provision of the law that it found discriminatory (the “slaughterhouse exemption”). The court found that the remaining provisions of the law did not discriminate against out-of-state interests and did not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The First Circuit held that the Massachusetts law does not discriminate against out-of-state producers in purpose or effect, does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test, and is not preempted by the FMIA or PSA. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due Process Clause, and Import-Export Clause. The court found no procedural error in the district court’s handling of the case. View "Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Brandon Velez was stopped by Manchester, New Hampshire police officers for vehicle equipment violations. After parking near his residence, Velez did not immediately comply with officers’ orders to exit his car. When he verbally refused and reached for his phone, officers attempted to physically remove him, leading to a struggle. During the altercation, one officer struck Velez multiple times and tased him twice. Velez was arrested and charged with misdemeanors and a traffic violation, ultimately pleading guilty only to the traffic violation. He later sued the officers and the City of Manchester, alleging wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, assault and battery, and failure to train.The case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that the officers had probable cause for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive. Velez appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Velez for resisting detention under New Hampshire law, defeating his wrongful arrest and false imprisonment claims. The court also found that, although one officer’s use of force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity shielded the officer from liability because the law was not clearly established in the specific context. The court further held that Velez’s state-law assault and battery claim failed under the same immunity standard, and that his claims against the City for failure to train were unsupported by evidence of a municipal policy or deliberate indifference. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. View "Velez v. Eutzy" on Justia Law

In March 2025, the President issued an executive order directing federal officials to eliminate non-statutory functions and reduce statutory functions of three federal agencies: the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). These agencies, established and funded by Congress, provide grants and services to states and other entities. Following the executive order, the agencies terminated, reassigned, or placed on leave nearly all employees and canceled numerous grants, which plaintiffs—twenty-one states—alleged caused immediate and ongoing harm, including loss of services, forced layoffs, and canceled programming.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had suffered and would continue to suffer concrete injuries due to the agencies’ actions. The court determined that the agencies’ actions likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional provisions, including the Take Care Clause and separation of powers. The injunction barred implementation of the executive order as to the three agencies, required reversal of actions taken to implement the order, restoration of employees, and resumption of grant funding, while allowing for efficiency measures not motivated by the executive order. The district court denied the government’s request for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed only the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The court denied the stay, holding that the government failed to make a strong showing of likely success on the merits, particularly because it did not adequately challenge the district court’s constitutional analysis and had not preserved certain arguments. The court also found that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor a stay. View "Rhode Island v. Trump" on Justia Law

Robert Miller died at his home in Cape Cod in 2019 following an encounter with Barnstable police officers Sean Roycroft and Spencer Jackson. The officers responded to a 911 call from Miller’s girlfriend, who requested a psychiatric evaluation but did not report any crime. Upon arrival, a struggle ensued as the officers attempted to handcuff Miller, who ended up face-down on the floor with Roycroft’s arm pinned beneath him. During the struggle, Jackson delivered two punches to Miller in an effort to facilitate handcuffing. Miller’s girlfriend witnessed one of the officers drive a knee into Miller’s back and heard Miller say, “I can’t breathe” and “Amy, help me.” After Miller was handcuffed, he became unresponsive and was later pronounced dead. The medical examiner attributed the death to cardiac dysrhythmia in the setting of excited delirium, while the plaintiff’s expert opined that Miller died from prone restraint cardiac arrest due to pressure on his back.The plaintiff, Miller’s son, brought a federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After discovery, the officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district judge denied summary judgment, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, particularly after Roycroft freed his arm and Miller was restrained. The judge concluded that clearly established law prohibited kneeling on a restrained person’s back and that a reasonable jury could find the officers’ conduct violated Miller’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the officers’ conduct while Roycroft’s arm was pinned (Phase One), affirmed the denial for conduct after Miller was restrained and a knee was placed on his back (Phase Two), and dismissed the appeal in part for fact-based arguments not suitable for interlocutory review. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Roycroft" on Justia Law