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

A dispute arose between a regional fishermen’s association and the federal government concerning changes to catch limits for several fish species in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The association, representing commercial fishermen allegedly harmed by reduced catch limits, challenged the legality of the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and its implementing regulations. At the core of the association’s argument was the claim that the involvement of the New England Fishery Management Council in the development of these rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The association argued that the Council exercised significant authority in the regulatory process but its members were not properly appointed as federal officers.The United States District Court for the District of Maine reviewed the case. It concluded that the association had standing due to the economic injury suffered by its members. The district court rejected the primary constitutional claim, holding that the Council’s role was advisory and final binding authority rested solely with the Secretary of Commerce, who promulgated the regulations. The court did, however, agree with the association in part, finding certain unrelated statutory provisions unconstitutional, but determined that this did not entitle the association to its requested relief. The district court severed those statutory provisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard the appeal. After reviewing the statutory framework and the specific facts, the court held that the Council’s role was advisory and did not amount to the exercise of significant federal authority under the Appointments Clause. The harm to the association’s members derived from the Secretary’s independent decision to promulgate the binding regulations, not from the Council’s recommendations. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief and reversed the district court’s severance of the unrelated statutory provisions. View "New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick" on Justia Law

Arthur Miles was sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment following two separate federal convictions. After his first sentencing in October 2022, Miles was housed at the Marion County Jail in Indiana for fifteen months—some of this time was before and some after his second federal sentencing. During his time at the county jail, Miles worked as an orderly. He later argued that under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), he was entitled to earn time credits for this work, which could reduce his sentence, because his federal sentence had commenced and the work was equivalent to an evidence-based recidivism reduction (“EBRR”) program.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed Miles’s habeas petition after a magistrate judge recommended denying the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge found that BOP regulations preventing prisoners from earning FSA credits until they arrived at a federal facility conflicted with the FSA’s language. The district court, however, rejected this recommendation and dismissed Miles’s petition, holding that the BOP’s rules did not violate the FSA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the BOP’s regulation, which delayed the accrual of FSA time credits until a prisoner’s arrival at a federal facility, was invalid because it conflicted with the statutory definition of when a sentence commences. The court further held that a risk and needs assessment is not a prerequisite for earning FSA credits, and that prisoners may earn credits for qualifying programming—such as work as an orderly—performed after sentencing even while housed in non-federal facilities. The court vacated the dismissal of Miles’s habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings to determine his entitlement to credits for his time at the county jail. View "Miles v. Bowers" on Justia Law

The case concerns significant changes made by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, which provides federal funding for homeless assistance projects. In November 2025, HUD issued a new Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that rescinded a previously issued two-year NOFO and introduced new requirements, including a drastic reduction in renewal funding for core permanent housing projects and new eligibility conditions. These changes threatened to eliminate funding for many projects, risking increased homelessness in the affected communities. Two groups of plaintiffs, including states, cities, and advocacy organizations, challenged HUD’s actions, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional provisions.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting HUD from rescinding the prior NOFO and from implementing the challenged conditions in the new NOFOs. The court found that HUD’s actions likely violated the APA, were arbitrary and capricious, and would cause irreparable harm by creating funding gaps and service disruptions for vulnerable populations. After Congress passed new appropriations legislation in early 2026—setting a structure for grant renewals to avoid funding gaps—HUD moved to dissolve the injunctions, arguing that the legislative changes eliminated any ongoing harm and affected the merits of the legal claims. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the risk of harm persisted and that the plaintiffs remained likely to succeed on their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed only the district court’s denial of HUD’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunctions. The court held that HUD failed to make a strong showing that the intervening appropriations law eliminated the plaintiffs’ risk of harm or undermined the basis for the injunctions. The First Circuit therefore denied HUD’s request for a stay pending appeal. View "National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Department of Housing and Urban Development" on Justia Law

A mother of four regularly sought care at a federally funded health center in Rhode Island from 2006 onward. Over a period of several years, she repeatedly reported persistent, weeks-long headaches with changing characteristics to her primary-care providers, also disclosing experiences of domestic abuse. Despite these reports, she was diagnosed with migraines and prescribed medication, but was never referred to a neurologist or for neuroimaging. In 2019, her symptoms worsened, and she lost consciousness, leading to hospitalization and the discovery of a slow-growing brain tumor, which had caused a buildup of cerebral fluid. Surgery to remove the tumor resulted in cerebellar strokes and permanent neurological damage, severely limiting her mobility and ability to care for her family.After the Department of Health and Human Services denied her administrative claim, she and her family filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court found negligence by the primary-care providers, awarded her damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and homemaker loss, and awarded her children damages for loss of consortium. The government appealed, arguing that the children’s consortium claims were not properly presented administratively, that the homemaker damages were excessive, and that the findings on standard of care, causation, and medical expenses were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the children’s loss-of-consortium claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and reversed those damages. The court vacated the homemaker damages award as excessive and unsupported by the evidence, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s findings on negligence and causation and upheld the pain and suffering awards, but reduced the medical expense award by the cost of an unrelated spinal MRI. The judgment was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified in part, and remanded. View "Urizar-Mota v. US" on Justia Law

The case involves parents of two children with disabilities, both of whom attend private religious schools in Massachusetts. State law entitles all students with disabilities, including those in private schools, to publicly funded special education services. However, a state regulation requires that while public school students can receive these services at their school of enrollment, private school students may only receive them at a public school or another public or neutral location. The parents, who observe Jewish law and prefer their children’s education be informed by Judaism, found it burdensome and disruptive to transport their children to and from different locations for services and chose to forgo the publicly funded services.The parents sued the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, individual board members, and the commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the regulation violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that while parents have a fundamental right to choose private schooling, the regulation does not restrict that right but merely defines the terms under which the state provides public benefits. The regulation does not ban or penalize private schooling or deprive meaningful access to it. Instead, it survives rational basis review because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of providing special education services while complying with the Massachusetts Constitution’s prohibition on aiding private schools. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities claims. View "Hellman v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education" on Justia Law

A federal employee working at a Veterans Affairs healthcare facility discovered that a nurse practitioner was improperly receiving overtime pay that was not actually earned and not related to COVID, contrary to requirements. The employee’s supervisors allegedly created and signed a false waiver to justify these payments, resulting in significant unearned compensation. When the employee refused to participate in the scheme and reported the conduct to the VA Office of Inspector General, he claimed to have been subjected to workplace retaliation, including a reprimand and demotion.The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, asserting a qui tam false claims action against his supervisors and a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) against the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in his official capacity. The government intervened and successfully moved to dismiss the false claims and conspiracy counts against the supervisors. The government also sought dismissal of the retaliation claim, arguing that the employee’s exclusive remedies lay under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), not the FCA. The district court, however, dismissed the retaliation claim on the ground that the FCA does not contain an express waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity for such claims, and thus federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that Congress has not expressly waived the federal government’s sovereign immunity to permit retaliation suits against federal employers under Section 3730(h) of the FCA. The court found that neither the FCA’s text nor its structure provided the required clear waiver of sovereign immunity, distinguishing such waivers present in other statutes. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "US ex rel. Sargent v. Collins" 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

In early 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued a Supplemental Guidance that implemented a uniform 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursement for all NIH-funded research grants, effective almost immediately. Indirect costs, which include necessary administrative and facility expenses not attributable to a single research project, had previously been negotiated individually with grant recipients according to established regulations and memorialized in negotiated indirect cost rate agreements (NICRAs). The new policy would substantially reduce the reimbursement many recipients, such as universities and hospitals, could receive under existing and future grants.Shortly after the guidance was issued, a coalition of states, medical associations, and higher education organizations challenged the NIH’s action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court first granted temporary restraining orders to prevent implementation of the guidance, then issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. After further proceedings, the district court converted this into a permanent injunction and vacated the Supplemental Guidance, concluding that the NIH’s action likely violated a congressional appropriations rider and HHS regulations, and finding the action arbitrary, capricious, and procedurally improper.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction because the plaintiffs challenged an agency-wide policy rather than seeking contract damages, which would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The appellate court further held that the NIH’s Supplemental Guidance violated the statutory appropriations rider and HHS regulations governing indirect cost reimbursement, including the requirements for deviations from negotiated rates. The First Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction and vacatur of the Supplemental Guidance. View "Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health" 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

Riverdale Mills Corporation operates a wire mesh manufacturing facility in Northbridge, Massachusetts. In 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted two investigations at Riverdale’s facility, which resulted in citations alleging violations of safety and health standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Riverdale contested these citations, and after a consolidated hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) in 2021, the ALJ affirmed three citation items while vacating or withdrawing the others.Subsequently, in December 2023, Riverdale applied to the ALJ for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). To establish eligibility for this recovery, Riverdale submitted its 2019 balance sheet as evidence, along with a motion to seal the document due to alleged confidential business information. The Secretary of Labor opposed the motion, arguing Riverdale had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for sealing. After considering submissions from both parties, the ALJ denied Riverdale’s motion to seal, applying balancing tests from D.C. Circuit and First Circuit case law and concluding Riverdale had not shown compelling reasons to overcome the presumption of public access. Riverdale attempted to appeal this denial to the OSHRC Commission, but the Commission automatically dismissed the appeal for lack of quorum.Riverdale then sought interlocutory review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit assumed interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and reviewed the ALJ’s denial for abuse of discretion. It held that Riverdale had waived certain arguments by not raising them earlier and determined the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to seal, finding Riverdale failed to meet its burden to justify sealing the balance sheet. The petition for review was denied. View "Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Chavez-DeRemer" on Justia Law