Latest news with #FirstCircuit
Boston Globe
09-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Lawyer running Providence Place mall will become US bankruptcy judge in R.I.
'The court is confident that attorney Dorsey's experience with receiverships, insolvency, and distressed asset proceedings and strong ties to the Rhode Island community will make him a valuable addition to the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island as well as to the First Circuit,' Barron said. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Barron also thanked Finkle 'for her many years of dedicated and distinguished service.' Advertisement With the judicial appointment, Dorsey will have to step down as a court-appointed receiver for Dorsey and his law partner W. Mark Russo were named the mall's court-appointed receivers, and Advertisement In May, they reversed course on a Also, earlier this year, Dorsey essentially granted a pardon to Michael Townsend, who was banned from the mall after he and others artists were found to have maintained a fully furnished Throughout his legal career, Dorsey has been a civil litigator focused on state receiverships and court-supervised insolvency and distressed asset proceedings. He is often appointed by state and municipal courts as a commissioner, special master, or receiver. Since 2010, Dorsey has practiced at the Dorsey received a bachelor's degree from Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute in 2007, and a law degree from Roger Williams University School of Law in 2010. Dorsey is a member of the Thurgood Marshall Law Society, and the Rhode Island Black Business Association. From 2015 to 2016, he served on the board of directors of the Quonset Development Corporation, and he served on the board of directors of the Roger Williams University Law School Alumni Association from 2018 to 2024. Advertisement The state Superior Court appointed Dorsey as the program coordinator of the team that developed the COVID-19 Business Recovery Program, which provided a roadmap for business owners to consider in protecting business interests in light of the effects of the pandemic. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island is a single judge court, with one place of business at 380 Westminster St. in Providence. The court handled Bankruptcy laws enable people or businesses who can no longer pay their creditors to organize their affairs, liquidate their debts or create a plan to pay them off, and get a fresh start. Bankruptcy judges decide matters involving the bankruptcy code, which sets out how the parties involved in a bankruptcy case should proceed. Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules against Mexico in its lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court sided with the firearms industry in ruling that Mexico's novel lawsuit didn't plausibly allege that gun companies had aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico had sued seven U.S. firearm manufacturers and a distributor for allegedly aiding and abetting illegal sales, arguing that the companies intentionally facilitated unlawful trafficking of their firearms across the southern border, supplying a demand by Mexican drug cartels that seek out American-made military-style weapons. But the companies argued that Mexico's legal theory was too far-fetched. 'Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash,' argued Noel Francisco, a former solicitor general under Donald Trump, to the justices on behalf of the industry in March. 'The First Circuit gravely erred in embracing that implausible theory and should be reversed,' Francisco added, referring to the federal appeals court that greenlit Mexico's lawsuit to move forward last year. The appellate panel noted that the 'increase in gun violence in Mexico correlates with the increase of gun production in the United States, beginning with the end of the United States' assault-weapon ban in 2004.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Forbes
02-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Fight For Cannabis Could Be Headed To Supreme Court
A group of cannabis companies looking to overturn the plant's illicit status at the national level could be on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And there is reason for them to be optimistic that at least one justice is willing to take the case. Last week the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the group, upholding a lower courts rejection of their lawsuit challenging the federal prohibition of cannabis. Verano Holding Corp., which operates in 14 different states, along with Massachusetts-based companies Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farms, and cannabis courier Gyasi Sellers sued the government in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Oct. 26, 2023, arguing that the CSA should no longer apply to cannabis because of the federal government's growing acceptance of legal state markets over the last decade. At the same time, the plaintiffs say that the law unfairly limits access to federal grants, banking services, payroll services and investments, as well as from processing credit cards for purchases. Cannabis operators are often required to deal in large sums of cash, which they argue makes them ripe for robbery, potentially creating a public safety risk. "We thus conclude that the appellants have failed to show that there is no rational basis for concluding that their activity substantially affects interstate commerce," wrote Chief Circuit Judge David Barron in a 22-page opinion released May 27. The next legal venue for the plaintiffs would be the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), but only if the court agrees to hear the case. There is no guarantee that SCOTUS will agree to hear a case, but Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has made it clear that he thinks it is time that the highest court in the land reconsiders the legality of cannabis. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Standing Akimbo v. United States in 2021, which involved a medical dispensary in Colorado suing over its inability to write off business expenses on their federal taxes. In declining to hear the case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a five-page statement in which he argued that it might be time to revisit Gonzalez v. Raich. In that earlier 2005 case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his majority opinion that despite state law, there was still a clear intention from the federal government to prevent the spread of illegal pot across state lines. Since then more states have legalized medical and adult-use cannabis, and the federal government has taken several active steps to allow state-legal cannabis businesses, such as defunding law enforcement efforts against cannabis. "The Federal Government's current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government's blanket prohibition in Raich," wrote Thompson. 'A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government's piecemeal approach.' The first major challenge from the federal government to state-legal medical cannabis took place during the George W. Bush administration, when Bush's Department of Justice began cracking down on medical cannabis in California. Angel Raich and Diane Monson sue the federal government after DEA agents raided their homes and destroyed the cannabis plants they each grew for personal use to treat their respective chronic health problems. That case, Gonzalez v. Raich, ultimately made it to the Supreme Count, which ruled the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, which bars the federal government from interfering in interstate commerce, does not apply to state-legal cannabis as long there was still a federal prohibition. Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his majority opinion that despite state law, there was still a clear intention from the federal government to prevent the spread of illegal pot across state lines. The plaintiffs in the Canna Provisions case argued before the First Circuit that this is no longer the case. Congress allowed Washington D.C. to legalize medical cannabis in 2010. The following year, then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued what became known as the "Cole Memo" which instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement of the federal prohibition against individuals in compliance with state regulations. Four years later, Congress enacted the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment which effectively defunded any DOJ action against state-legal cannabis. That amendment has been renewed every year since. Donald Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, actually rescinded the Cole Memo in 2017, but since then the DOJ has continued to operate as if the memo was still in effect. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of all states have legalized medical and half have legalized adult-use. So far, the courts have remained unconvinced that these changes represent a significant sea change in how the federal government treats cannabis, but it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court sees things differently.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
With cannabis industry struggling, Western Mass. sellers and growers seek relief from high court
SPRINGFIELD – Plaintiffs growing, selling and delivering legal marijuana in Massachusetts now have two court decisions against them, but aren't giving up. They seek to overturn a federal law they say strangles their business. They were turned back last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. But plaintiffs say their fight against the Richard Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not over. 'It is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review,' wrote one of their attorneys, Jonathan D. Schiller of the firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The plaintiffs include Canna Provisions, with stores in Holyoke and Lee; Wiseacre Farms, which grows cannabis in West Stockbridge; Gyasi Sellers, of Springfield, which delivers cannabis; and Verano Holdings Inc. based in Chicago. That company owns Zen Leaf Enfield, at 98 Elm St., in Enfield, Connecticut. The plaintiffs say the 1970 law is an overreach and prevents them from making use of banking services and bankruptcy protection available to most businesses. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions each term, but hears only about 80 cases. The Boies in the firm's name is that of David Boies, who represented former U.S. Vice President Al Gore during the recount controversy against President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Boies argued in person when the case came before U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni in Springfield a year ago. The judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and upheld the Controlled Substances Act. The companies appealed to the First Circuit and a three-judge panel ruled Tuesday, once again in favor of the government. The plaintiffs declined further comment. They sued in 2023, saying that with states legalizing cannabis for recreational use, the 1970 federal law exceeds Congressional power. Making their argument, the companies reached back into history showing that marijuana predates the U.S. Constitution. 'Each of the thirteen original colonies enacted' laws concerning marijuana — 'then known simply as 'hemp'' — some of which 'encouraged (or even required) colonists to grow marijuana,' the suit read. Even the Magna Carta of 1215 created rights concerning hemp cultivation and sometimes even 'made the cultivation of hemp compulsory.' But the appeals judges were unmoved, saying that if left unregulated, the trade in marijuana within states would impact interstate commerce. And Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. As a practical matter, federal law makes it harder for marijuana companies to lease farm land for fear of losing federal agricultural supports or to do banking or borrow money. The Massachusetts marijuana industry does $1 billion a year in sales, according to data kept by the Cannabis Control Commission. Commission data says marijuana retails for $125 an ounce these days, down from $416 in 2020. Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition trade association, said 30 Massachusetts cannabis businesses closed in the last year. Regulation is expensive, he said. And every neighboring state except New Hampshire has legalized recreational marijuana. Many of those states have tailored their laws – such as limits on how much customers can buy in one transaction – to compete with Massachusetts. The federal law means none of them can take federal tax deductions, he said. And if they want to go out of business, they can't claim bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy issue is something the lawsuit could fix if it reaches the Supreme Court, Dominguez said. 'A lot of these people would have to declare personal bankruptcy,' he said. And that means they would lose personal assets in addition to the business. Placing pigeons in the park on purpose in Springfield Cause detailed for February train derailment in Wendell 'Global order has been upset': World Affairs Council gauges tariff war impact on Western Mass Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Lifts Buffer Zone Outside Karen Read Trial
A ban on protests within a 200-foot 'buffer zone' outside a Massachusetts courtroom was lifted by the judge in Karen Read's trial Thursday, opening the door to quiet demonstrations in the public areas outside the building.'Quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants' entrance into or exit from the Courthouse, and that do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice, and that are not intended to influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties are specifically outside the scope of the Buffer Zone restrictions,' Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a decision released Thursday. Cannone had ordered the buffer zone, she said, to prevent protesters from intimidating jurors and witnesses and making so much noise as to disrupt the proceedings. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the buffer zone, finding that a group of protesters was unlikely to be able to show that its First Amendment rights outweighed the right to a fair the protesters' lawyer, Mark Randazza, told the First Circuit appellate court last week that his clients would agree to remain silent, protest only on streets and sidewalks off courthouse property and stay away when jurors entered and left the courthouse. 'The First Amendment is back from vacation in Massachusetts,' Randazza said in a statement. 'After treating courthouse sidewalks like North Korea with better landscaping, the First Circuit reminded everyone that free speech doesn't take vacations just because one judge or police department is offended.' Cannone reversed herself after the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Per Curiam in which jurists urged a reconsideration. "Read's case has become something of a cultural phenomenon. It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse (the "Courthouse"). The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators - including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants - frames a potential conflict between the state court's effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators' right to express their views," the court wrote. Read, 45, is charged with hitting her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank after a night of drinking. Her Los Angeles defense attorney Alan Jackson insists that O'Keefe died after a fight with another cop inside the house of another officer where his body was found and then framed Read. The controversy swirling around the case intensified when text messages from the lead police investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, wrote in a group text that included his supervisors that he had searched Read's phone for nude photos of her. He also called her 'whackjob cunt,' ridiculed her for having a chronic illness, made disparaging comments about her body and said that he hoped she would kill herself. He was fired in March. On Thursday, jurors heard evidence about whether it was possible that O'Keefe was punched in the face prior to his body being found in the snow. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts medical examiner, testified during cross-examination that she did not find any injuries on O'Keefe's body consistent with being struck by a vehicle. 'You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident, did you?' a member of Read's defense team Robert Alessi asked. 'I did not,' Scordi-Bello answered.'Did you evaluate it at all in your autopsy?' Alessi said. 'Whether Mr. O'Keefe had any injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident?' 'Yes, I did examine his lower extremities,' Scordi-Bello said. 'That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle. So I did examine his legs and I did not see any evidence of an impact site.' O'Keefe's manner of death was ultimately listed as undetermined after Scordi-Bello was unable to come to a homicide ruling based on available evidence at the time of the in the case is in its fourth week. Jurors were sent home on Tuesday after Read fell ill.
