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

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 In November 2025, HUD issued a new Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that rescinded a previously issued two-year NOFO and introduced new requirements, including a drastic reduction in renewal funding for core permanent housing projects and new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 dispute arose regarding the proceeds of a federal life insurance policy held by a United States Postal Service employee, who was insured under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA). Shortly before his death from cancer, he executed a beneficiary designation form naming his ex-wife and their two sons as beneficiaries. However, he failed to fully complete a section of the form, omitting certain requested information. After his death, the form was processed but ultimately rejected by the employer’s HR office because it was incomplete and received after the employee’s death. Under FEGLIA, absent a valid designation, the benefits would have gone to his widow, who passed away during the litigation, leaving her daughter as the estate’s representative.The plaintiffs (ex-wife and sons) sued in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking a declaration that the January 2017 designation form was valid. The District Court converted the case to an interpleader proceeding. After an evidentiary hearing and additional discovery, the court found that the form met all statutory requirements for a valid designation under FEGLIA, was signed and witnessed, and that there was no evidence the decedent lacked mental capacity when signing. The court denied the defendant’s motions for additional discovery and summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings for abuse of discretion and de novo as appropriate. The First Circuit held that the designation form was valid under federal law, as it was signed and witnessed, and that omitted information did not affect statutory requirements. The court also held that the appellant failed to present medical evidence of incapacity, so the challenge to mental competency failed. The judgment for the plaintiffs was affirmed. View "Hebert v. Donahue" on Justia Law

During a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would not provide November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, affecting millions of Americans who rely on these funds for food. Despite having approximately $6 billion in contingency funds appropriated by Congress for emergencies, USDA stated it would not use these funds, arguing they were unavailable once regular appropriations lapsed. Plaintiffs, including nonprofits, local governments, a union, and a food retailer, filed suit, alleging that USDA’s suspension of benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring USDA to provide either full or partial November SNAP payments by specified dates. The government chose to provide partial payments but failed to do so in a timely manner, as many recipients would not receive benefits by the court’s deadline. The district court found the government had not complied with its order, both by failing to resolve administrative burdens and by not ensuring timely disbursement. As a result, the court ordered USDA to make full November SNAP payments, including by using funds from the Section 32 fund in combination with contingency funds. The government appealed and sought a stay of the district court’s order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. The court held that the government had not met its burden to justify a stay, finding it had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable harm would result from compliance. The court emphasized the immediate and substantial harm to SNAP recipients if benefits were withheld and denied the government’s motion for a stay. View "Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Kenneth Pontz was convicted by a jury of violating a federal embezzlement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 641, by misrepresenting his financial situation to obtain public benefits over an eight-year period. The government presented evidence that Pontz had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by falsely claiming he lived alone, while he actually lived with his wife, who received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Pontz's misrepresentations allegedly began in 2004 and continued until 2020.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Pontz's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that the statute of limitations barred charges for conduct occurring before June 16, 2017. The district court ruled that § 641 embezzlement was a "continuing offense," allowing the government to charge Pontz for conduct dating back to 2014. At trial, the court admitted testimony from an SSA employee, Luis Aguayo, as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, despite Pontz's objections that it was based on technical knowledge requiring expert testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and held that § 641 embezzlement is not a continuing offense under the standard established in Toussie v. United States. The court found that the nature of embezzlement does not involve a renewed, daily threat of harm once the elements of the crime are complete. Consequently, the government could not charge Pontz for embezzlement occurring more than five years before his indictment. The court vacated the restitution and forfeiture orders and remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy for the statute-of-limitations error. The court upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings regarding Aguayo's testimony. View "United States v. Pontz" on Justia Law

The case involves Alam & Sarker, LLC, a convenience store in New Bedford, Massachusetts, which was disqualified from participating in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the United States Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The FNS's decision was based on data indicating irregular SNAP transactions at the store, including a high number of back-to-back transactions and unusually large purchases, which suggested trafficking in SNAP benefits.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the FNS. The court found that the transaction data provided sufficient evidence of trafficking and that the store failed to rebut this inference with significantly probative evidence. The Market's opposition, which included customer statements and inventory records, was deemed insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the FNS's reliance on SNAP transaction data was appropriate and that the Market did not provide adequate evidence to counter the strong inference of trafficking. The court also rejected the Market's procedural due process claim, noting that the de novo hearing in the district court cured any potential procedural deficiencies at the administrative level. The court concluded that the Market received all the process that was due and upheld the permanent disqualification from SNAP. View "Alam & Sarker, LLC v. US" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court entering summary judgment for the United States and rejecting the lawsuit brought by Appellant asking the district court to overturn the finding of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture that Appellant was disqualified from further participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP), holding that there was no error.FNS disqualified Appellant from further participation in SNAP after investigating evidence of unlawful trafficking in SNAP benefits. Thereafter, Appellant brought this action seeking to overturn the FNS's liability finding and asking the court to vacate the order of program disqualification as arbitrary and capricious. The district court entered summary judgment for the United States. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of the United States on the liability issue; and (2) the sanction of the permanent disqualification order from the program was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "AJ Mini Market, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Act 90, passed by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico in 2019, was preempted by federal law, holding that the district court did not err.Act 90 requires that Medicare Advantage plans compensate Puerto Rico healthcare providers in Puerto Rico at the same rate as providers are compensated under traditional Medicare. Plaintiffs, several entities that managed Medicare Advantage plans, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the "mandated price provision," arguing that the Medicare Advantage Act preempted the challenged provision and that provision was unconstitutional. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Act 90's mandated price provision was preempted by federal law. View "Medicaid & Medicare Advantage Products Ass'n of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Emanuelli-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for attorneys' fees, which he filed more than two years after successfully representing Appellee before both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the district court, holding that the district court properly denied the motion as untimely.In his motion requesting attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. 406(b), Appellant argued that the statute does not contain a fixed time for filing a section 406(b) petition. The district court denied the fee request as untimely, concluding that such a motion must be filed within a reasonable time of the SSA's decision awarding benefits. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, given that Appellant failed to file his section 406(b) petition in a timely manner, the district court did not err in denying his request for attorneys' fees. View "Pais v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

In this case arising from what the Social Security Administration (SAA) did to Appellants, Marie Pagan-Lisboa and Daniel Justiniano-Ramirez, after Jose Hernandez-Gonzalez and Samuel Torres-Crespo admitted to fraudulently helping people get disability-insurance benefits from the SAA, the First Circuit held that Appellants were entitled to a new redetermination proceeding.With the help of Hernandez-Gonzalez and Torres-Crespo, Pagan-Lisboa applied for and started getting disability benefits from the SAA. An ALJ determined that Pagan-Lisboa did not have sufficient evidence to support her initial benefits claim and terminated her benefits. An ALJ also canceled Justiniano-Ramirez's benefits benefits on the grounds that Hernandez-Gonzalez had provided fraudulent evidence in support of the benefits. Thereafter, Appellants sued a putative class action, arguing that the SAA could not terminate their benefits without letting them contest the existence of fraud in their cases. The court of appeals affirmed the ALJ's decision in Justiniano-Ramírez's case and remanded Pagan-Lisboa's case back to the agency. The First Circuit held (1) the judge erred in not accepting Justiniano-Ramírez's amended complaint, which showed that he had exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) the judge did not wrongly dismiss Appellants' policy challenges to the redetermination procedure. View "Pagan-Lisboa v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law