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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement against a State of Maine law requiring cable operators to offer their subscribers the option of buying access to cable programs and channels individually, rather than bundled together in a channel or package of channels, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiffs, a group of cable operators and programmers, sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law, arguing that it was preempted by certain provisions of the federal Communications Act and that it violated the First Amendment. The district court granted the injunction on First Amendment grounds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that the law triggered heightened First Amendment scrutiny because it singled out cable operators; and (2) because Maine conceded that, at this point in the litigation, it had not offered sufficient evidence in support of the law to survive any heightened level of scrutiny, the district court correctly entered a preliminary injunction delaying enforcement of the law. View "Comcast of Maine/New Hampshire v. Mills" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Law enforcement officers stopped Defendant as he drove by in a vehicle that the officers believed matched the description of a vehicle that had just been involved in a shooting. The officers arrested Defendant and then deployed a firearm-detecting dog to inspect the outside of the vehicle. The dog sniff results where then used to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle. Based on the results of the search, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial due to certain evidentiary rulings because there was no error, either individually or cumulatively. View "United States v. Centeno-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the determination of an immigration judge (IJ) that Petitioners, a husband and wife who were natives and citizens of Brazil, were not eligible for an adjustment of status pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), holding that the BIA and IJ did not appropriately focus their inquiry.On appeal, Petitioners argued that the BIA applied incorrect standards in determining that a labor certification application (LCA) filed on behalf of the petitioner husband was not "approvable when filed" and erred in denying their motion to remand. The First Circuit held (1) determining whether an LCA is approvable when filed requires a holistic inquiry that is not a license to deny grandfathering based on any perceived shortcoming in an LCA; and (2) the IJ and BIA did not keep their focus on that inquiry in the course of their evaluation of the petitioner's LCA. View "Oliveira v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during an inventory search of a vehicle that a Massachusetts State Police trooper stopped on a highway, holding that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to make the stop.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. In response, the government argued that the inventory search fell within the community caretaking function. The district court disagreed, holding that there was no non-investigatory reason to conduct the inventory search. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court declaring a foreclosure void and awarding Appellant damages but denying relief on her remaining claims, holding that Appellant's challenges on appeal were either waived or otherwise unavailing.After two attempts to foreclose the mortgage on a condominium that Appellant purchased she filed a six-count adversary complaint in the bankruptcy court naming five defendants, the financial institutions and law firms connected with the foreclosure. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment as to one count in favor of Appellant, voiding one of the foreclosures, but denied the remaining claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant's challenges were either waived or baseless. View "Jackson v. ING Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

In this civil rights action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Stanley Spiegel and later granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, holding that the allegations against Spiegel failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Defendant's second amended complaint named as defendants the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, the Brookline Board of Selectmen, certain members of the Board, Spiegel (a town meeting member), and others. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race, retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, and conspired to enforce the Town's policy of opposing racial equality. After the district court disposed of Defendant's claims he appealed, arguing that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against Spiegel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there were no facts pleaded in the complaint sufficient to ground a reasonable inference that Spiegel was liable to Defendant for any of the causes of action he brought. View "Alston v. Town of Brookline, Massachusetts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release and sentencing him to six months of imprisonment and an additional eight years of supervised release, holding that Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the revocation of his release violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and that his suspension from treatment violated his Fifth Amendment due process right. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) a court in this circuit can impose mandatory periodic polygraph examinations in connection with sex offender treatment programs as a condition of supervised release, where the condition prohibits basing revocation in any way on the defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) in this case, no penalty was attached to Defendant's potential invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and therefore, his privilege was not violated; and (3) Defendant's suspension from sex offender treatment did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to due process. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court must recalculate the Guidelines sentencing range.Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Before sentencing, Defendant argued that this prior conviction as a joint venturer for an otherwise violent crime did not qualify for career-offender status. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty months' imprisonment and six years of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in deciding not to apply the career-offender enhancement. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Capelton, 966 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). View "United States v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' motion to intervene in the underlying suit involving a challenge to the U.S. Department of Education's recent promulgation of a challenged regulation, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to intervene.The regulation at issue sets the standard for actionable sexual harassment for administrative enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and provides additional procedural protections to students who have been accused of sexual harassment. Appellants - the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Independent Women's Law Center, and Speech First, Inc. - moved to intervene. The district court denied the motion, finding that Appellants had failed to show that the government would not adequately protect their rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention. View "Victim Rights Law Center v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant but should have provided a sealed copy of the written statement of reasons (SOR) upon Defendant's request.Defendant's guidelines sentencing range (GSR) was thirty-three to forty-one months. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release - the statutory maximum - and denied Defendant's request to access the SOR. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence but remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err in relying on Defendant's criminal history and the type of weapon he possessed in sentencing Defendant; (2) the district court properly considered other relevant factors; and (3) Defendant should have been allowed to access the SOR. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Flores" on Justia Law