Michael Boudin

In Da Silva Neto v. Holder, a Brazilian citizen who entered the U.S. without inspection sought cancellation of removal after a 2006 incident in which he damaged property at his estranged wife's home, leading to a conviction for malicious destruction of property under Massachusetts law. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that this offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, barring the petitioner from establishing the good moral character required for relief. The First Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA's determination was reasonable because the Massachusetts statute requires intentional acts of gratuitous or excessive violence hostile to the property owner. The court applied deferential review to the agency's interpretation of the INA rather than conducting de novo analysis of whether the conduct was base or depraved.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involved a securities fraud claim under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, in which Anima alleged that NeuroMetrix made misleading statements by failing to disclose material information about reimbursement risks for its products. The court had previously affirmed dismissal of the complaint, and it now denies Anima's petition for rehearing en banc, which argued inconsistency with the Supreme Court's recent Matrixx decision on materiality. The court reasoned that Matrixx focused on when undisclosed facts are material and reaffirmed that possession of material non-public information does not automatically create a duty to disclose, whereas here the company's statements had acknowledged risks and grown more specific as facts developed, without the type of misleading positive projections seen in Matrixx.

business & regulatory

The case involved William Foote, who was denied reappointment by the Bedford town council to an unpaid advisory recreation commission after he publicly criticized the council's plans for a community park project and funding methods. Foote sued the town and several council members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the decision violated his First Amendment rights, along with related state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that the commission position involved policymaking advice to the council, so under the Elrod/Branti and Pickering frameworks, the defendants' interest in effective government and policy compatibility outweighed Foote's speech interests when his public criticisms demonstrated a lack of alignment with the council's views.

free speechcivil rights

In this case, shareholders of NeuroMetrix, Inc. brought a consolidated securities fraud action against the company and several officers, alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on misleading statements about the sustainability of insurance reimbursement codes for the company's NC-Stat medical device and the associated risks to revenue and stock value. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), finding no actionable misstatements. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint's allegations, even when taken as true, failed to identify any materially misleading statements under the applicable legal standards for securities fraud claims.

business & regulatory

In this case, Ricardo Rodriguez pled guilty to federal firearms offenses after selling sawed-off guns to an undercover officer in 2006. At his 2009 sentencing, the district court applied the then-current Sentencing Guidelines, which included a four-level trafficking enhancement added after Rodriguez's crimes, resulting in a higher recommended range and a 108-month prison term. Rodriguez appealed, arguing that using the post-offense Guidelines violated ex post facto principles. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the court should have used the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense under established policy for advisory Guidelines calculations, without reaching the constitutional question. The court found this error plain and prejudicial on the record presented.

criminal law

The case involved Myriam Gómez-González and her husband suing her former employer, Rural Opportunities, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and ERISA, as well as Puerto Rico law claims for wrongful discharge and mental distress, based on her termination and alleged failure to accommodate a preexisting back condition. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all federal claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence showing that the termination was pretextual, that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation, or that the employer was liable for any denial of disability benefits.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned whether Libertarian Party presidential and vice-presidential candidates Bob Barr and Wayne Root, who were not affiliated with a recognized political party under Massachusetts law, were entitled to appear on the 2008 statewide ballot despite failing to file the required nomination papers. The district court ruled in their favor, holding that the Equal Protection Clause required a substitution mechanism for such candidates and that the state substitution statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed the equal protection holding, concluding that the Clause does not mandate substitution rights for non-party candidates. It further determined that the statute, while not vague, required interpretive clarification by Massachusetts state courts under Pullman abstention principles, rendering related claims moot or likely moot, and therefore vacated the remaining portions of the judgment and remanded the case.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition by DeWitt Tash challenging his 2002 Massachusetts state conviction for raping a mentally impaired adult woman under his care at a state facility. Tash argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call an expert on false confessions and by mishandling the cross-examination of a key eyewitness and evidence about the absence of physical trauma. The U.S. District Court denied the petition, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that counsel's decisions were reasonable strategic choices given the circumstances, including the psychologist's findings on Tash's intelligence and the risk of undermining the defense, and that additional impeachment or evidence would have been cumulative or unhelpful. It further held that the state courts' rejection of the claims was not unreasonable under federal habeas standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Amit Mathur's conviction on multiple counts of mail and wire fraud for operating a fraudulent hedge fund that misappropriated millions from investors through false statements and unauthorized personal use of funds. Mathur appealed, arguing that the government's late disclosure of certain documents violated Brady v. Maryland and warranted a new trial or resentencing. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that the delayed disclosure did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights. The court reasoned that the documents were of limited value, similar information had been provided earlier via an SEC memorandum, and the defendant failed to request a continuance to address any potential issues at trial or sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing Direct Marketing Concepts, ITV Direct, their owners, and related entities for producing and airing infomercials that promoted Coral Calcium and Supreme Greens supplements with claims they could cure diseases including cancer, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and others by correcting bodily acidosis. The district court granted summary judgment to the FTC on liability for deceptive advertising and, after a bench trial, ordered the defendants to pay millions in restitution based on their sales proceeds. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the infomercial statements were unsubstantiated and materially misleading to consumers, that the defendants were jointly liable, and that the district court properly exercised its equitable discretion to calculate damages using available financial records when the defendants failed to provide precise accounting of non-deceptive sales. The court rejected challenges to the evidence, liability findings, and remedy calculation.

business & regulatory

This case concerns an appeal by attorney Zack Hawthorn from a district court order limiting his fees under contingent fee agreements with two clients who served as whistleblowers in a federal prosecution of Overseas Shipholding Group for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The district court had capped Hawthorn's fee at $25,000 for one client and disallowed any fee for the other. The First Circuit concluded that the contractual fees were excessive under the circumstances but held that the district court abused its discretion by denying any compensation for the second representation. It therefore ordered that Hawthorn receive $25,000 for each client and affirmed in part and reversed in part.

criminal lawenvironmentprocedure

In Statchen v. Palmer, Carl Statchen sued Concord police officers under federal civil rights law, claiming they used excessive force when arresting him for public intoxication and later at the station while transporting him to jail, along with related state assault claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the officers' actions reasonable, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that Statchen's resistance, intoxication, and physical build justified the force used, as his own deposition testimony failed to show that the officers applied more force than necessary or that a reasonable officer would have thought otherwise.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Genzyme Corporation sued its insurer, Federal Insurance Company, seeking coverage under a directors and officers liability policy for costs incurred in settling a shareholder class action lawsuit arising from Genzyme's elimination of its tracking stock structure via a share exchange. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the loss was uninsurable under Massachusetts public policy and that the policy's Bump-Up clause barred recovery for settlement payments. On appeal, the First Circuit held that no public policy barred coverage and that the Bump-Up clause applied only to claims against the corporation itself, not to amounts paid to indemnify directors and officers. The court therefore reversed in part and remanded for the district court to determine what portion of the settlement, if any, was attributable to indemnification of the directors and officers and how the costs should be allocated under the policy.

business & regulatory

The case involved Timothy Brown, who was convicted of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute after Boston police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger, seized marijuana, arrested him, and later recovered crack cocaine from his person. Brown appealed, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to insufficient reasonable suspicion and that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on a supervisor's observation of Brown smoking marijuana and the subsequent smell of burnt marijuana upon approach. The court also ruled that no evidentiary hearing was required because Brown's proffer did not create a genuine factual dispute and the paper record supported the district court's findings on the stop.

criminal law

In this case, Raúl Figueroa-González was charged with multiple counts of carjacking and use of a firearm during a crime of violence; after the cases were consolidated, he pled guilty to three carjacking counts and one firearm count but appealed the district court's finding that he was competent to enter the plea. The competency issue arose during plea negotiations, leading to conflicting expert evaluations: one psychiatrist found him unable to assist counsel or participate effectively in proceedings due to mental retardation, while a later comprehensive evaluation by another expert concluded he was competent and possibly malingering. The district court, after a hearing that included testimony about the defendant's leadership role in the crimes and his interactions with counsel, determined he was competent. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's competency finding was not clearly erroneous because it properly applied the legal standard, weighed the conflicting evidence, and was supported by observations of the defendant's conduct and assurances from counsel. The court also rejected claims that the district judge had improperly focused on dangerousness or that a second hearing was required.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a motorcyclist suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a collision with a government vehicle driven by a federal special agent commuting home from work. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, finding the agent was not acting within the scope of his employment, and the First Circuit affirmed. Applying Massachusetts respondeat superior principles, the court reasoned that the agent's conduct—engaging in a personal verbal and physical confrontation, including swerving and displaying a firearm—went beyond authorized commuting and served his own interests rather than the employer's. The authorization to use the vehicle for official purposes did not extend to these private actions, distinguishing the case from ordinary negligence during commutes.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In this case, debtor David Paolo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought a determination in bankruptcy court of his personal liability for over $217,000 in unpaid employment tax penalties from his former company, which remained non-dischargeable despite the estate having no assets. The government moved for dismissal or abstention, arguing that 11 U.S.C. § 505 did not apply because the tax issues would not affect administration of the estate and that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 was lacking. The district court abstained from deciding the tax dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the abstention decision was not reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d), without addressing the underlying jurisdictional or statutory questions.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Next Step Medical Co., a Puerto Rico distributor of spinal medical devices, and Johnson & Johnson International (JJI) over JJI's termination of Next Step's exclusive distributorship rights under their 2005 contract. Next Step sued in Puerto Rico court seeking a preliminary injunction under the Puerto Rico Dealers Act (Law 75) to restore exclusivity and access to new products, plus contract damages, while its president sought tort damages for emotional distress; JJI removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on the contract's dispute resolution clause. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice after a magistrate judge ordered arbitration. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the broad arbitration provision covered all claims arising from the business relationship, including the tort claim, and that the president's personal signature and a contract section made him bound as a party to arbitration.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Michael Crooker, a convicted felon, who was indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after shipping a package containing an airgun and a homemade cylindrical device intended to muffle its sound. The central issue was whether this airgun silencer qualified as a "firearm" under the statutory definitions in §§ 921(a)(3)(C) and (24), which require a device "designed" for use as a silencer on a firearm. The First Circuit reversed the conviction and ordered acquittal, holding that the government failed to prove the device was designed or intended for use on a conventional firearm rather than solely for the airgun, despite evidence of its potential adaptability and Crooker's knowledge of firearms. The court reasoned that the statute's language focuses on design and purpose, not mere capability or possible adaptation, and that the government presented no evidence of illicit purpose sufficient to meet this standard.

criminal lawguns

This case involved two Stoughton, Massachusetts, police officers who sued the town, its board of selectmen, and several police officials, claiming they faced a campaign of retaliatory harassment after cooperating with a district attorney's investigation into alleged police misconduct and disclosing workplace issues. The district court granted summary judgment and directed verdicts on many claims, and a jury ruled for the defendants on the rest, resulting in complete victory for the defendants. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed across the board, holding that the evidence did not establish actionable retaliation, including that any harassment did not rise to the level of adverse employment actions when viewed collectively and that causation was not sufficiently proven against the individual defendants.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speech