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

The State of Maine filed two similar lawsuits against 3M Company, alleging that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufactured by 3M had contaminated various natural resources across Maine. One suit targeted PFAS contamination from 3M’s production of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), a firefighting product, while the other (the “non-AFFF” case) sought recovery for PFAS contamination not related to AFFF. Maine included a disclaimer in the non-AFFF complaint, stating it was not seeking relief for contamination related to AFFF, including military specification (MilSpec) AFFF, which was produced under federal direction and used at military and other federally regulated sites.3M removed both cases to the United States District Court for the District of Maine under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that PFAS from AFFF and non-AFFF sources had plausibly commingled at various sites, giving rise to a colorable federal defense. Maine did not oppose removal of the AFFF case but moved to remand the non-AFFF case, contending that its disclaimer precluded any federal defense. The district court agreed with Maine, finding that the disclaimer shifted the burden to the State to prove contamination was not from AFFF, and thus remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the remand order. The court held that 3M’s theory—that PFAS contamination from MilSpec AFFF, for which it has a federal contractor defense, is commingled with other PFAS contamination—must be credited at this stage. The court concluded that the disclaimer did not eliminate 3M’s colorable federal defense or the “related to” nexus required for federal officer removal. The First Circuit ordered the case returned to federal court for further proceedings. View "Maine v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

In April 2006, an oil tanker owned or operated by Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG and insured by Shipowners Insurance & Guaranty Company, Ltd. ran aground off the coast of Puerto Rico. Although no oil was spilled, the response efforts to free the vessel and prevent a potential spill caused significant damage to coral reefs. The United States, acting through NOAA and in coordination with Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, undertook restoration and assessment of the damaged natural resources. After unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from the responsible parties and their insurers, NOAA sought compensation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which paid out restoration and assessment costs. Subsequently, the United States filed suit against the vessel’s owner and insurer to recover both compensated and uncompensated damages for injury to natural resources under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico bifurcated the case into liability and damages phases. Without allowing discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to the United States on liability, finding that the Coast Guard’s Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) had determined the grounding posed a “substantial threat of a discharge of oil,” and that this determination was not arbitrary or capricious. The court applied a deferential standard of review to the FOSC’s decision and did not address whether the damaged natural resources were “managed or controlled” by the United States, as required by OPA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) due to the presence of admiralty claims. The court vacated and reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that liability under OPA requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not merely deference to the FOSC’s determination, and remanded for further proceedings, including resolution of whether the United States “manages or controls” the natural resources at issue. View "US v. Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

In 2019, New Hampshire filed two lawsuits in state court against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that they produced defective PFAS products, negligently marketed them, and concealed their toxicity, leading to widespread contamination of the state's natural resources. One lawsuit sought damages for PFAS from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), while the other sought damages for non-AFFF PFAS contamination. The latter, referred to as the "Non-AFFF Suit," is the subject of this appeal.The Non-AFFF Suit proceeded in state court, and over the next three years, the court dismissed some of New Hampshire's claims. In August 2021, New Hampshire filed a second amended complaint. In December 2021, New Hampshire disclosed over 200 sites allegedly contaminated with non-AFFF PFAS. In April 2022, 3M removed the case to federal court, arguing that the contamination involved MilSpec AFFF PFAS, which it produced for the U.S. military, thus invoking the federal officer removal statute. New Hampshire moved to remand the case, and the district court agreed, citing that 3M's removal was untimely and did not meet the federal officer removal statute requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction. The court assumed, without deciding, that the alleged commingling of MilSpec AFFF PFAS and non-AFFF PFAS satisfied the nexus requirement for federal officer removal. However, it found that 3M's removal was untimely. The court determined that New Hampshire's filings in 2019 and 2020 provided sufficient information for 3M to ascertain removability, starting the 30-day removal clock well before 3M filed for removal in April 2022. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to state court. View "New Hampshire v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

An environmental group, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), sued Academy Express, LLC (Academy), a transportation company, alleging that Academy violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) by idling its buses beyond state limits in Massachusetts and Connecticut. CLF claimed that its members were harmed by breathing polluted air from Academy's buses. Academy moved for summary judgment, arguing that CLF lacked associational standing. The district court agreed and granted Academy's motion, holding that CLF could not demonstrate that its members suffered a concrete injury traceable to Academy's conduct.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that only two of CLF's members, Wagner and Morelli, had alleged injuries-in-fact, but their injuries were not traceable to Academy's idling due to the presence of other potential pollution sources in the urban environment. The court did not address the standing of additional members disclosed by CLF after the close of fact discovery or the expert testimony submitted by CLF.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's narrow interpretation of injury-in-fact. The appellate court held that breathing polluted air and reasonable fear of health effects from pollution are cognizable injuries. It also found that recreational harms do not require a change in behavior to be considered injuries-in-fact. The court emphasized that traceability does not require a conclusive link but can be established through geographic proximity and expert testimony.The First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was instructed to determine the scope of the record, make necessary factual findings, and apply the correct legal standards for injury-in-fact and traceability. The appellate court did not address redressability, leaving it for the district court to consider if necessary. View "Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Academy Express, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc. (MALA) challenging a final rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that seasonally bans vertical buoy lines used in lobster and Jonah crab trap fishing in certain federal waters off Massachusetts from February 1 to April 30 each year. The NMFS issued this rule to protect the endangered North Atlantic right whales from entanglement in these buoy lines during their foraging period.Previously, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of MALA, holding that the final rule conflicted with a temporary statutory authorization for lobster and Jonah crab fishing contained in a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The district court found that the final rule did not fall within the exception provided in the rider, which allowed for actions to extend or make final an emergency rule that was in place on the date of the rider's enactment, December 29, 2022. The court concluded that the 2022 emergency rule was not "in place" on that date because it was not actively preventing fishing in the Wedge area at that time.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the 2022 emergency rule was indeed "in place" on December 29, 2022, for the purposes of the rider's exception. The court reasoned that the emergency rule's findings and authority were still relevant and could serve as a basis for future regulatory actions, such as the final rule. Therefore, the final rule was lawful and enforceable under the exception provided in the rider. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Mass. Lobstermen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv." on Justia Law

The case involves the fate of the Frank J. Wood Bridge, a historic bridge in Maine connecting Topsham and Brunswick. Built in 1932, the bridge is no longer safe without substantial rehabilitation or replacement. The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) decided that replacing the bridge was more sensible than rehabilitating it. Since federal funds would be used, MDOT needed approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and compliance with federal statutes, including Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, due to the bridge's historic status.The FHWA approved MDOT's plan to replace the bridge, despite objections from preservation groups. The plaintiffs challenged this decision in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which rejected their challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the FHWA's decision in part, remanding the case to determine whether a 53% price differential between rehabilitation and replacement constituted a cost of extraordinary magnitude under Section 4(f).On remand, the FHWA concluded that the 53% differential was indeed a cost of extraordinary magnitude. Plaintiffs argued that updated cost estimates showed that rehabilitation would now be cheaper than replacement. The FHWA, however, found the plaintiffs' updated estimates flawed and did not recalculate the differential. The plaintiffs then sued again, and the district court granted summary judgment for the agencies, finding that the FHWA had complied with the remand instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the FHWA acted within the scope of the remand by deciding whether the 53% price differential was a cost of extraordinary magnitude and was not required to reopen the record to consider new cost information. View "National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Buttigieg" on Justia Law

The case involves the approval process for a large-scale commercial offshore wind energy facility located on the Outer Continental Shelf, fourteen miles south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The plaintiffs, consisting of commercial fishing entities and a nonprofit organization, challenged the federal government's approval of the project, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various federal departments and agencies, as well as the business entity responsible for the wind project. The court found that the plaintiffs' ESA claims were non-justiciable due to lack of standing and mootness, as the initial biological opinion had been superseded by a new one. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were outside the zone of interests protected by the NEPA and the MMPA, and that the Alliance had failed to show that the Corps' issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit was arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's rulings de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgments, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their ESA claims and that the claims were moot. The court also upheld the district court's zone-of-interests rulings regarding the NEPA and MMPA claims. Additionally, the court found that the Corps' decision to issue the CWA permit was not arbitrary or capricious and that the BOEM's approval of the project under the OCSLA was lawful. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' arguments did not demonstrate that the BOEM had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the project. View "Seafreeze Shoreside, Inc. v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

The case involves a family from Guatemala who entered the United States without valid entry documents and were served with Notices to Appear, charging them with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The father, Roni Cruz Galicia, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, with his wife and child as derivative beneficiaries. Cruz claimed that they were members of a particular social group ("PSG") defined as "climate refugees," having fled Guatemala due to severe environmental conditions and the government's inadequate response.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Cruz's testimony credible but rejected his asylum claim. The IJ determined that Cruz did not experience sufficient harm in Guatemala to constitute past persecution, the asserted PSG of "climate refugees" was not legally cognizable, and Cruz's fear of poor conditions in his home country did not constitute a well-founded fear of future persecution. Cruz appealed the IJ's asylum ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed the IJ's decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Cruz argued that his asserted PSG of "climate refugees" was legally cognizable and that he had experienced past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution due to his membership in the PSG. The court found no error in the determination that Cruz failed to show that his asserted PSG is legally cognizable. The court also rejected Cruz's argument that the BIA erred by affirming the denial of his asylum claim summarily and without a written opinion. The court denied the petition. View "Cruz Galicia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the construction of an offshore wind project aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The project, proposed by Vineyard Wind 1, LLC, was expected to provide energy sufficient to power 400,000 Massachusetts homes. However, residents of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket opposed the project, arguing that federal agencies failed to properly assess the potential impact of the project on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Vineyard Wind, rejecting the residents' challenge to a biological opinion issued by the NMFS and relied on by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in permitting the construction of the wind power project.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the residents challenged the lower court's decision, arguing that the NMFS's determination that the incidental harassment of up to twenty right whales constituted a "small number" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. They also argued that NMFS's consideration of the "specified activity" and the "specific geographic region" within which that activity would occur for purposes of issuing the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Vineyard Wind was impermissibly narrow in scope.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the NMFS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that it had properly delineated the "specific geographic region" for the purposes of the IHA. The court also found that the residents' concerns about the broader effect of the project on the right whale population were unwarranted, as the agency had considered the impact on the entire right whale population in its "negligible impact" analysis, its biological opinion, and in its participation in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Environmental Impact Statement. View "Melone v. Coit" on Justia Law

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence. View "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" on Justia Law