Free Newsletter
Immigration – Competency
Where the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an immigration judge’s removal order, that order should be vacated because the judge's failure to address the petitioner’s competency despite the presence of relevant indicia for doing so undermines the credibility finding on which the judge based her conclusions for ordering the petitioner removed.
Constitutional – Second Amendment – ‘Assault-style firearms’
Where a Massachusetts statute prohibiting the sale, transfer or possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons was extended in 2024 to include “assault-style firearms,” the dismissal of a complaint challenging the facial constitutionality of certain provisions of the amended statute should be affirmed because the plaintiff’s contention that the challenged provisions violate the right to[...]
1st Circuit revives iRobot merger securities fraud suit
The 1st Circuit revived a securities fraud lawsuit alleging iRobot misled investors about regulatory approval prospects for its Amazon merger.
Securities – Fraud – Merger
Where a securities fraud class action was brought following an abandoned merger, a judgment of dismissal should be reversed in part, as the complaint plausibly alleges that an opinion expressed in a modified proxy statement — that the defendant company expected regulatory approval for the merger — is actionable because it omitted important contrary information about European approval in circum[...]
Immigration – Effectiveness of counsel
Where a petitioner’s motion to reopen her appeal based on her counsel's ineffective assistance for failing to file a brief was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a remand must be ordered because (1) the BIA did not explain how the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), (2) there is a reasonable probability of prejudice based on counsel'[...]
Civil rights – Standing – Secret recordings
Where plaintiffs challenged the State Police’s “record-and-withhold” program, a motion to dismiss should have been allowed because the plaintiffs have not alleged an injury in fact with sufficient concreteness or imminence to establish standing.
Criminal – Limitations – Superseding indictment
Where a defendant was found guilty following a bench trial, his convictions should be affirmed despite his argument that the district court wrongly denied his motion to dismiss Counts Two and Six of the superseding indictment as time-barred.
Immigration – Gangs – Political opinion
Where the Board of Immigration Appeals denied applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the board’s decision should be vacated because there is no categorical bar to political opinion claims resting on resistance to gang recruitment or opposition to gangs.
Criminal – Sentencing – Ammunition
Where an upward variance of 25 months was imposed based in part on the large quantity of ammunition the defendant possessed, the sentence must be vacated because the district court’s explanation for its reliance on the amount of ammunition was too limited to permit the necessary review.
Constitutional – Maine statute – Firearm waiting period
Where plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a Maine statute that imposes a 72-hour waiting period before a seller may deliver a firearm to its purchaser, that request should have been denied because the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their claim that the statute is facially unconstitutional.
Attorneys – Fees – PROMESA
Where plaintiffs who obtained a favorable judgment against the Comisión Estatal de Elecciones were awarded almost $65,000 in counsel fees, the fee award must be reversed based on the confirmation of Puerto Rico's financial reorganization plan pursuant to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA).
Appeals – Mootness – Union dues
Where four University of Puerto Rico employees challenging the deduction of union dues from their paychecks have filed an appeal requesting declaratory judgments that (1) the post-resignation dues deductions were unconstitutional and (2) taking such deductions in the future would be unconstitutional, the appeal must be dismissed because the declarations sought are moot.
