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

The First Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction granted to Plaintiffs in this case, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments challenging United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) policy of civilly arresting individuals attending court on official business.In 2018, ICE issued a directive formalizing its policy of arresting allegedly removable noncitizen in and around state courthouses when they appeared for judicial proceedings. Plaintiffs sued ICE, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and three DHS officials (collectively, Defendants), challenging the directive and ICE's policy. The district court determined that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that ICE lacked statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101-1537, to conduct such arrests and preliminarily enjoined ICE from implementing the directive or otherwise civilly arresting individuals attending court on official business anywhere in Massachusetts. The First Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case, holding that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's contrary ruling was based on a material error of law. View "Ryan v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for several sex crimes, including using a facility and means of interstate commerce to knowingly induce a thirteen-year-old female to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), and transporting minors in a commonwealth with the same illicit intent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a), holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support each one of Defendant's convictions; (2) any error in letting a law enforcement officer testify about text messages taken off Defendant's cell phone and about an app without being qualified as an expert in "cell phone extractions or forensic analysis" was harmless; and (3) Defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Montijo-Maysonet" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court vacating a portion of an arbitration award that voided the guaranty agreement at issue in this case, holding that, contrary to the conclusion of the district court, the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers.Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) contracted with KCST USA, Inc. to operate and market a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. MTC also secured a guaranty of KCST's obligations under the contract from KCST's parent company, Axia NetMedia Corporation. Axia later sued MTC over the guaranty agreement. MTC sought an order compelling arbitration, which the district court granted. The arbitrator found that MTC had materially breached the agreement with KCST, and, therefore, that the guaranty agreement was void for failure of consideration. The district court concluded that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his powers and vacated the award. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his powers under section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Axia NetMedia Corp. v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted the petition filed by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC for rehearing as to remedy in this case where the First Circuit vacated the grant of an air permit by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a proposed natural gas compression station and remanded the case to that agency, holding that the remedy granted is remand without vacatur.On June 3, 2020, the First Circuit issued an opinion vacating the air permit for the proposed compressor station to be built as part of Algonquin's Atlantic Bridge Project, holding that the DEP did not follow its own established procedures for assessing whether an electric motor was the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Court's remedy was to vacate the air permit and remand to the DEP to redo the BACT. Given new developments that will materially the "balance of equities and public interest considerations," the First Circuit altered its remedy and revised its opinion to reflect that the remedy granted is remand without vacatur. View "Town of Weymouth v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence that he received for his conviction for possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.After the district court concluded that Defendant was competent Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922(o) and 924(a)(2). After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a ninety-six-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that Defendant failed to preserve his procedural challenges, there was no clear error in the district court's fact-finding; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's chosen sentence was not outside the "universe of reasonable sentences." View "United States v. Lopez-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's Securities Act claims and finding that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring his Securities Exchange Act claims, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the Securities Act and failed to state an Exchange Act claim.On behalf of proposed classes of investors, Plaintiff alleged that ReWalk Robotics, Ltd. violated both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act by omitting details and misrepresenting its dealings with the Federal Drug Administration in its initial public offering Registration Statement and in subsequent disclosures. The district court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the Securities Act and that he lacked standing to challenge ReWalk's alleged failures to make certain disclosures after his purchases of ReWalk securities. The district court further denied Plaintiff's motion to add Joanne Geller as a party. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims. View "Yan v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider his motion to reopen removal proceedings, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion.Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was charged with being removable from the United States. The Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability and denied Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court's precedent forecloses the argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of removal; (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to reconsider its denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen; and (3) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to make the requisite prima facie case. View "Franjul-Soto v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court's judgment ordering Council 93, a regional division of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), to reconstitute its executive board "within one year so that there may be proper proportional representation for its constituent locals and members," holding that the district court erred.This case arose out of a dispute between Council 93 and one of its local divisions, Local 402, over the allocation of seats on Council 93's governing executive board. Plaintiffs, members of Local 402, brought this action alleging that the allocation of seats on the executive board violated their right to an equal vote under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the AFSCME constitution. The district court agreed and ordered Council 93 to reconstitute its executive board. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) any remedy for a violation of the equal rights provision of Title I must be implemented by the Secretary of Labor under the remedial provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to show that the union constitution supported their claims. View "Conille v. Council 93" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering Petitioner's removal, holding that Petitioner's state drug conviction was an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43); 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, pled guilty to drug possession with the intent to distribute, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32A(a). The Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him because his drug conviction constituted an aggravated felony under the INA. An immigration judge ruled that Petitioner was removable. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the mens rea to convict an accomplice under section 32A(a) is no broader than under the Controlled Substances Act, Petitioner's state drug conviction amounted to illicit trafficking in a controlled substance and thus an aggravated felony under the INA. View "Soto-Vittini v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claim that Defendant failed properly to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 1210 et seq., and the Maine Humans Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4551 et seq., holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury that to succeed on a claim that an employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, a plaintiff must prove that he needed an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his job. The First Circuit agreed, holding (1) by instructing the jury that an employee must demonstrate that he needed an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his job, the district court wrongly limited Plaintiff's potential liability; and (2) the error was prejudicial. View "Bell v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law