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

Three nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging an executive order that denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and whose mothers are present in the country either unlawfully or only temporarily. The organizations alleged that they have members who are expecting children affected by the order, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that the plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims, and that the equitable factors favored granting relief. It issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the executive order against the plaintiffs and their members, but not against nonparties. The government appealed the scope and propriety of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal issues and clear error review of factual findings. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. However, the First Circuit vacated the injunction to the extent that it ran directly against the President and the agencies themselves, holding that injunctive relief should be limited to agency officials. The court affirmed the injunction as applied to the organizations’ members who are likely to be harmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, issued in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States after its effective date if their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and their mothers are either unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Plaintiffs include individual immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and a coalition of states and local governments. They allege that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Order.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary injunctions to both sets of plaintiffs, finding they were “exceedingly likely” to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a). The injunctions barred federal agencies and officials from enforcing the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and, in the case brought by the states, issued a nationwide injunction to provide complete relief. The government appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of the injunctions, and the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs have Article III standing and are likely to succeed on the merits. The First Circuit held that the Executive Order’s denial of birthright citizenship to children born in the United States under the specified circumstances violates both the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), as interpreted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part, vacated them in part as to agency defendants, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Doe v. Trump" on Justia Law

A group of out-of-state pig farmers and a pork processor challenged a Massachusetts law that prohibits the use of certain confinement methods for breeding pigs (specifically, gestation crates) and bans the sale in Massachusetts of pork products derived from pigs confined in such a manner. The plaintiffs, who operate outside Massachusetts and use these confinement methods, argued that the law discriminates against out-of-state producers and is preempted by federal statutes. The law was enacted by ballot initiative and became enforceable after the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, including those based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, preemption by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Import-Export Clause. The court allowed the dormant Commerce Clause claim to proceed, but ultimately granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on that claim as well, after severing a provision of the law that it found discriminatory (the “slaughterhouse exemption”). The court found that the remaining provisions of the law did not discriminate against out-of-state interests and did not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The First Circuit held that the Massachusetts law does not discriminate against out-of-state producers in purpose or effect, does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test, and is not preempted by the FMIA or PSA. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due Process Clause, and Import-Export Clause. The court found no procedural error in the district court’s handling of the case. View "Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell" on Justia Law

A Haitian national entered the United States on a temporary visa in 2010 and was later charged with removability for overstaying his visa. After initially obtaining temporary protected status, which was extended for several years, his status was not renewed in 2018. He was subsequently arrested multiple times in New Hampshire between 2018 and 2020 for incidents involving domestic violence and resisting arrest, though not all arrests resulted in convictions. Following his last arrest, he was detained and removal proceedings were initiated. He sought adjustment of status through his wife, as well as cancellation of removal and other forms of relief.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable and denied his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. The IJ found the testimonies of the petitioner and his wife credible but inconsistent regarding the details of the arrests, and gave more weight to police reports, which were considered closer in time to the events. The IJ denied adjustment of status as a matter of discretion, citing the negative factors reflected in the police reports, and found the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal due to insufficient continuous physical presence, as his notice to appear was served less than two years after his arrival.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, holding that the police reports were reliable and their use was not fundamentally unfair, and that the IJ could consider evidence of criminal conduct not resulting in conviction. The BIA also found the notice to appear sufficient to stop the accrual of continuous presence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the BIA erred by failing to determine whether the police reports were corroborated before giving them substantial weight in denying adjustment of status. The court vacated the BIA’s order as to adjustment of status and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal. View "Maurice v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case concerns a Guatemalan petitioner, López, who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture in the United States. After an immigration judge denied her applications, López appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), indicating her intent to file a supporting brief. On the deadline, her counsel attempted to file the brief electronically but mistakenly submitted it to the immigration court instead of the BIA. The immigration court rejected the filing weeks later, and counsel promptly refiled with the BIA and moved for acceptance of the late brief, explaining the technical error.The BIA, through an unsigned notice, denied the motion to accept the late-filed brief, stating only that the rationale was insufficient and that no further motions or reconsideration would be entertained. Subsequently, a single-member panel of the BIA dismissed López’s appeal, adopting the immigration judge’s decision and stating that the grounds for appeal were waived because they were not developed in a timely brief or statement. The BIA did not address the circumstances of the late filing or the explanation provided by López’s counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA’s actions. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to provide an adequate explanation for denying the motion to accept the late-filed brief, especially given the plausible and promptly explained reason for the delay. The First Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further consideration consistent with its opinion, without addressing the merits of the underlying asylum claims. View "Lopez-Gomez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan citizen and her minor son entered the United States without legal status in August 2021. In November 2022, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her. Nearly a year later, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), naming her son as a derivative applicant. She claimed that, for four years prior to her departure, unidentified hooded men in her home village threatened to kidnap her children if she did not support their side in a local land conflict. She did not report these threats to authorities, and neither she nor her family suffered physical harm or kidnapping attempts.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found her asylum application untimely, rejecting her argument that ignorance of immigration law constituted an extraordinary circumstance excusing the late filing. The IJ also found that the threats did not amount to past persecution, nor did she establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, as the threats were unfulfilled and not linked to a protected ground. The IJ denied withholding of removal, citing her failure to meet the higher burden required, and denied CAT protection, finding no evidence she would likely be tortured or that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in such harm. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that her circumstances were not extraordinary and that the threats were insufficiently specific or severe to constitute persecution or torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of her untimely asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The court further held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, as the record did not compel a finding of past persecution, future persecution, or likely torture. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part. View "Zapet-Alvarado v. Bondi" on Justia Law

An employee of an airline company in Puerto Rico suffered a work-related injury when an airplane door struck his head. After the incident, he sought medical treatment and eventually reported to Puerto Rico’s State Insurance Fund (the Fund) for workers’ compensation. The employer did not initially provide the necessary incident report for the Fund, nor did it file a Work Accident Report with the Fund until nearly two years later. The employee was placed on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and continued to receive treatment, including surgery and physical therapy. While still under medical care and unable to return to work, he was terminated by the employer, who cited his failure to keep them informed of his status.The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging several claims under federal and Puerto Rico law, including a retaliation claim under Puerto Rico’s Whistle-Blower Act (Law 115). The district court dismissed some claims at the motion to dismiss stage and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, including the Law 115 retaliation claim. The district court found that the five-month gap between the employee’s report to the Fund and his termination was too long to establish causation, and also concluded that the employer’s stated reasons for termination were not pretextual.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo. The court held that the district court erred by treating close temporal proximity as a necessary condition for causation and by failing to consider the employer’s shifting explanations for the termination as evidence of pretext. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment on the Law 115 claim and remanded for further proceedings, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding causation and pretext. View "Mercado v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc." on Justia Law

A borrower in Rhode Island financed a home purchase with a mortgage from a national bank. The mortgage required the borrower to make advance payments for property taxes and insurance into an escrow account managed by the bank. The bank did not pay interest on these escrowed funds, despite a Rhode Island statute mandating that banks pay interest on such accounts. Years later, the borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failing to pay the required interest under state law.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the bank that the National Bank Act preempted the Rhode Island statute. The court reasoned that the state law imposed limits on the bank’s federal powers, specifically the power to establish escrow accounts, and thus significantly interfered with the bank’s incidental powers under federal law. The court did not address class certification or the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, focusing solely on preemption.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., which clarified the standard for preemption under the National Bank Act. The First Circuit held that the district court erred by not applying the nuanced, comparative analysis required by Cantero. The appellate court found that the bank failed to show that the Rhode Island statute significantly interfered with its federal banking powers or conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the borrower’s claims to proceed. View "Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A Haitian national who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident at age 13 faced removal proceedings after being convicted in New Hampshire for the sale of a controlled drug, which was classified as an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. During removal proceedings, he sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that he would likely be tortured if returned to Haiti due to risks posed by Haitian authorities, gangs, and individuals seeking revenge, especially given his severe mental illness.An Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the removal charge and denied his application for CAT relief after conducting hearings and considering evidence. The IJ found that, although conditions in Haitian detention facilities were deplorable and extrajudicial violence was a problem, the petitioner had not shown that the Haitian government maintained these conditions with the specific intent to torture detainees. The IJ also found insufficient likelihood that the petitioner would be targeted for torture by gangs, mobs, or private individuals with government acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, and the petitioner timely sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit held that the BIA erred by failing to address the petitioner’s CAT claim regarding the risk of torture by low-level Haitian officials in detention facilities. The court vacated the BIA’s order and remanded for further consideration of this specific claim, instructing the BIA to properly distinguish between intent and purpose requirements for torture under CAT. The petition for review was otherwise denied, as the court found no error in the agency’s handling of other aspects of the CAT claim or in its evidentiary rulings. View "Fleurimond v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A naturalized U.S. citizen and his noncitizen son challenged the U.S. Secretary of State and the Consul General of the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro over the reclassification of a visa petition. The father, after becoming a lawful permanent resident, filed a Form I-130 petition for his son, who was under 21 at the time. The son turned 21 during the process, and the petition was approved when a visa in the F2A category was available. After the father naturalized, the consulate reclassified the petition into the F1 category for adult children of U.S. citizens, resulting in a lengthy wait for visa availability. The plaintiffs alleged that, under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), the son should still be considered under 21 for visa purposes, and the reclassification was unlawful.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint, relying on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally bars judicial review of consular decisions regarding visa denials. The court did not address the merits of whether the reclassification was lawful under the CSPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability did not bar judicial review in this instance because the plaintiffs were challenging the reclassification of the visa petition, not a visa denial. The court then addressed the merits and concluded that, under the CSPA, the son’s statutory age should be calculated using the formula provided for F2A beneficiaries, which accounts for bureaucratic delays. Therefore, the son remained a “child” for visa purposes at the time of the father’s naturalization, and the reclassification to the F1 category was unlawful. The First Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Teles De Menezes v. Rubio" on Justia Law