1. Home
2. Daily News
3. At least 2 immigration lawyers in Massachusetts…

Immigration Law

At least 2 immigration lawyers in Massachusetts received notices to self-deport

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 10:32 am CDT

Two immigration lawyers in Massachusetts who are U.S. citizens have said they received notices from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security telling them that it’s time to leave the United States.

Boston immigration lawyer Nicole Micheroni, who was born and raised in Massachusetts, received a notice Friday telling her that she was paroled into the United States for a limited period, and that the government was exercising its discretion to revoke parole.

WCVB-TV and NBC Boston are among the publications with stories.

“Do not attempt to remain in the United States. The federal government will find you,” the letter said. “Please depart the United States immediately.”

Micheroni told WCVB-TV that she is lucky because she has a U.S. passport and a birth certificate.

“Both show I’m a U.S. citizen. I’m not someone who is supposed to leave,” she said.

“I think it’s really scary this is going on,” Micheroni told NBC Boston. “I think it says they’re not being careful.”

Boston immigration lawyer Carmen Bello said she also received the notice, report WCVB-TV and MassLive.com. She came to the United States from the Dominican Republic but she has been a U.S. citizen since 2007.

Bello said many of her clients have also received the letter.

More than 900,000 people who entered the United States using an online appointment app were generally allowed to remain in the United States for two years under presidential parole authority. The Department of Homeland Security is canceling paroles and telling people to leave the country immediately, the Associated Press reports. The Department of Homeland Security did not say how many notices have been sent.

The Department of Homeland Security sent notices to email addresses provided by the immigrants, including, in some cases, email addresses of U.S. citizens they listed as contacts, according to a statement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suits seeking continued US funding will likely…

U.S. Supreme Court

Suits seeking continued US funding will likely be routed to Court of Federal Claims after SCOTUS decision, law prof says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 11:42 am CDT

A decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to an education-grant freeze will likely redirect many other lawsuits regarding Trump administration spending decisions to the Court of Federal Claims, according to a law professor.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision allowed the Trump administration to freeze $65 million in education-related grants while a suit filed by eight states is litigated.

The Supreme Court found that the government was likely to succeed in its argument that a district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the Administrative Procedure Act. The law waives government immunity but not for court orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of the order by U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court said.

Instead, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear such suits, the high court said.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the ruling “should quickly knock out many other ‘spending’ cases and redirect them to the Court of Federal Claims. This is a court most people have never heard of but will soon become very important.”

The Supreme Court’s decision stayed a March 10 temporary restraining order issued by Joun, report Politico, Reuters, Howe on the Court, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision but did not issue or join a dissent. The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices also dissented.

The Trump administration had canceled the grants because they included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The states that sued are California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

Joun’s order had required the government to pay past-due grant obligations and to continue paying the obligations as they accrue. The judge based the decision on a finding that the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that the freeze was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed with that finding.

Generally, TROs cannot be appealed, but the order issued by Joun was more akin to a preliminary injunction, the majority said.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the general rule is that Administrative Procedure Act suits go to federal district courts, even when a remedial order may result in the disbursement of funds.

“So the court’s reasoning is at the least underdeveloped, and very possibly wrong,” she said.

Kagan also criticized the majority for making a decision based on the government’s emergency application.

“The risk of error increases when this court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency,” Jackson wrote. “It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the government when the government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully.”

The decision is Department of Education v. California.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Massachusetts college students accused of hatching a plot to frame a man and label him a predator — which resulted in his assault — say the criminal charges against them should be dropped.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the Assumption University students allegedly lured a 22-year-old man to the campus, falsely accused him of seeking sex with an underage girl, and then chased him down and beat him while recording the attack as part of a so-called “To Catch a Predator” trend on TikTok. The students, all teens, are facing felony kidnapping and conspiracy charges.

Now, the students — Isabella Trudeau, 18, Kevin Carroll, 18, Joaquin Smith, 18, Easton Randall, 19, and Kelsy Brainard, 18 — have asked the judge overseeing the case to drop at least some of the charges against them, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported.

Leonardo Angiulo, a lawyer for one of the students, reportedly described the incident as “a bunch of kids making bad decisions” — but not something that warranted serious charges.

Defense lawyers also said the video that was taken by students to share on social media not only misrepresents what happened, it shows that the man’s movement was not restricted as he ran away. Attorneys also attacked the statement of facts written by police, saying that it relied on the students’ accounts even as officers openly questioned the truth of what they were saying.

At one point, Angiulo argued that the students were simply being students.

“They decided they wanted to confront a person they disagreed with,” he said, according to the Telegram & Gazette. “Isn’t that what college is all about?”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Third federal appeals court rejects Trump…

Constitutional Law

Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 12:05 pm CDT

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston on Tuesday refused to allow President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship to take effect, joining two other federal appeals courts that also ruled against the administration on the issue.

The 1st Circuit refused to stay pending appeal a federal judge’s Feb. 13 nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order. The appeals court joined the 9th Circuit at San Francisco and the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia, which issued similar rulings.

Law360, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Volokh Conspiracy covered the March 11 decision.

Trump’s Jan. 20 order bans birthright citizenship when a mother is in the country illegally or temporarily and when a father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts had granted a preliminary injunction to 18 states that challenged the order, finding that they were likely to succeed in their argument that it violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The District of Columbia and San Francisco were also plaintiffs.

On appeal, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers did not “make any developed argument” that the government was likely to succeed in showing that Trump’s order was constitutional, the 1st Circuit said. Instead, lawyers claimed that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The states had countered that they had standing because the order would result in a loss of federal funds for health care, special needs education, child welfare and applications for Social Security numbers.

The 1st Circuit sided with the states, finding that the government had not made the strong showing needed to overcome state arguments.

1st Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the opinion in the case, New Jersey v. Trump.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin applauded the decision in a statement cited by Law360.

“Every court to consider President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship by executive order has found it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and every appellate court has rejected DOJ’s effort to put his order back in place,” Platkin said. “We are thrilled with the 1st Circuit’s decision, and we look forward to standing up for our birthright citizens no matter how far the Trump administration takes this case.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Bar associations could be targeted, Trump…

Bar Associations

Bar associations could be targeted, Trump DEI order says, spurring response from 2 of them

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 23, 2025, 10:55 am CST

Bar associations could be targeted for investigation under President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and the private sector.

The order issued Tuesday called for federal agencies to identify up to nine entities for possible civil compliance investigations, including large nonprofits and state and local bar associations.

The order declared that “influential institutions of American society” are using “dangerous, demeaning and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil rights laws of this nation.”

Reuters has the story on the response from two state bar associations.

The State Bar of California said its programs won’t be affected because “none of our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.”

Victoria Santoro, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, also said the state bar is not breaking the law.

“I think there are better ways our federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations,” Santoro added.

The American Bar Association is not commenting at this time, a spokesperson told the ABA Journal.

The ABA’s Goal III calls for eliminating bias and enhancing diversity by promoting full and equal participation in the association, the legal profession and the justice system. Over the last few years, these ABA diversity programs and policies have come under scrutiny:

  • The ABA section that is recognized as the accrediting group for JD programs has been wrangling with changes to its diversity standard for law schools. As currently written, Standard 206 says law schools “shall demonstrate by concrete action” a commitment to having a student body, faculty and staff who are “diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.” The section decided to revise the standard following a June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at universities.

The latest proposed revision under consideration by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar requires a commitment to diversity for all people, including listed members of historically disadvantaged groups.

The wording change didn’t satisfy 21 attorneys general in Republican-controlled states, who warned that it “appears to perpetuate unlawful racial discrimination.”

  • At least nine ABA diversity programs were targeted by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024. The ABA’s general counsel, Annaliese Fleming, said at the time the ABA programs are lawful. and the allegations are “factually and legally incorrect.”

In October 2024, the ABA updated its description of one targeted program—its judicial clerkship program—because some language “did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” Fleming said in a statement explaining the change. The program introduces law students from diverse backgrounds to judges and law clerks.

  • The ABA changed its diversity policy for continuing legal education programs that it sponsors after the Florida Supreme Court banned course credit in the state for programs with panel “quotas.” The old ABA policy had numerical requirements for diverse panelists; the new policy says CLE organizers “will invite and include” moderators and faculty members to create panels to meet Goal III objectives.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge offers ‘unreserved apology’…

Judiciary

Federal judge offers ‘unreserved apology’ after order says his Alito criticism violated ethics rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 18, 2024, 12:09 pm CST

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the District of Massachusetts is offering an “unreserved apology” and a commitment to “scrupulously avoid” future transgressions after he was found to have violated the judicial code of ethics for criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in an op-ed in the New York Times.

Ponsor’s apology letter resolves the ethics complaint, according to the Dec. 10 order by Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia. Diaz investigated after the case was transferred to his court from the appeals court with jurisdiction in Massachusetts, where Ponsor is located.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story on Diaz’s order, followed by coverage by Reuters and Bloomberg Law.

Ponsor, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, had criticized the display of an upside-down flag at Alito’s home and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at the justice’s vacation home in the May op-ed.

The flags are associated with stolen-election claims and Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol rioters. Alito has said his wife erected the flags.

“Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a ‘Stop the Steal’ bumper sticker on your car,” Ponsor wrote in the op-ed. “You just don’t do it.”

Noting Alito’s claim that his wife flew the flags, Ponsor offered a hypothetical. If his wife had expressed her view of the death penalty when he had a case pending on that issue, Ponsor said, he would have recused himself based on the appearance of partiality.

Diaz said Ponsor’s criticism harmed public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and its “political implications and undertones” violated a ban on commenting on the merits of pending cases.

Following the flags controversy, Democrats had called for Alito’s recusal in pending cases involving obstruction charges against accused Capitol rioters and President-elect Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution in the federal election-interference case.

The public might have interpreted Ponsor’s op-ed “as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito’s recusal” in pending Jan. 6 cases, Diaz said.

Ponsor’s apology letter said the ethics violations were “unintentional at the time but clear in retrospect.”

The Article III Project, a conservative group, had filed the ethics complaint against Ponsor.

“The courts and Judge Ponsor took this seriously,” said Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, in a statement cited by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. “I accept his apology letter at face value.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge gave ‘reasonable impression’ she was…

Judiciary

Judge gave ‘reasonable impression’ she was letting immigrant evade ICE, ethics charges say

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 5, 2024, 12:52 pm CST

A Massachusetts judge who allegedly gave a “reasonable impression” that she was allowing an immigrant to evade federal custody was “less than fully candid” when asked about the incident, according to an ethics complaint filed Monday.

The judge, Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph of Massachusetts, is accused of willful misconduct in the ethics complaint.

Boston.com, Reuters, the Daily Mail and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly have coverage.

Joseph maintains, however, that she was not aware of a plan to let Jose Medina-Perez escape custody, and she was cooperative and truthful in the investigation by supervisors and disciplinary authorities. She “committed no misconduct and certainly no willful judicial misconduct,” her lawyers said in the written response to the charges.

“Judge Joseph looks forward to a hearing where all the circumstances finally become public,” said Thomas Hoopes, her lawyer, in a statement published by Reuters.

Joseph had once faced federal charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice over the April 2018 incident in the Newton, Massachusetts, courthouse.

Prosecutors had alleged that Joseph allowed Medina-Perez to go downstairs to the lockup, supposedly to retrieve property. The immigrant was then allowed to leave through a back door by a court officer. The charges were dropped in September 2022 after Joseph agreed to report herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The ethics complaint recounted the alleged sequence of events.

Medina-Perez was in court on a Pennsylvania warrant and two controlled-substance violations. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was in the courtroom, and Joseph asked him to wait outside in accord with district court policy. At some point before a reconvened hearing, the defense attorney “formulated a plan with the court officer” to avoid ICE agents in which Medina-Perez would be returned to the lockup and let out of a door by the court officer.

The prosecutor later advised Joseph and the defense attorney that she no longer thought that Medina-Perez was the subject of the Pennsylvania warrant, and she would not seek bail on the misdemeanor charges. During a recorded sidebar conference, the defense lawyer said, “ICE is going to pick him up if he walks out the front door. But I think the best thing for us to do is to clear the fugitive issue, release him on a personal, … and hope that we can avoid ICE.”

Joseph allegedy replied, “The other alternative is if you need more time to figure this out—hold until tomorrow.” The defense lawyer responded that ICE would pick up Medina-Perez if he was bailed out. Joseph allegedly responded, “ICE is gonna get him?” and, “What if we detain him?”

The defense lawyer then asked whether the sidebar conference was on the record. Joseph directed the court clerk to turn off the recording equipment. The unrecorded remarks lasted 52 seconds.

Joseph’s recorded statements “would give a reasonable observer the impression that she sought to assist defense counsel in identifying a means for the defendant to avoid ICE,” the ethics complaint says. “Judge Joseph’s willingness to conduct an unrecorded sidebar conversation with counsel, in violation of [a district court rule], added to the basis for that impression.”

The defense lawyer allegedly asked Joseph in the unrecorded conference to allow him to accompany Medina-Perez to return to the lockup area after he was released from state custody. The defense lawyer also allegedly said Medina-Perez could be released through a rear door, according to the ethics complaint. Joseph allegedly agreed to the request with the knowledge that ICE agents were waiting in a different area of the courthouse.

When the recorder was turned back on, the defense lawyer said he thought that the defendant had property downstairs, and he would like to speak with him with an interpreter. “That’s fine. Of course,” Joseph said. After their arrival downstairs, the court officer released the defendant from the rear door, unbeknownst to the ICE agent.

Joseph failed to disclose the unrecorded session to the first justice of the Newton District Court, and when asked about it by a regional administrative judge, she said her unfamiliarity with courtroom equipment may have caused a portion of the hearing not to be recorded, the ethics complaint said.

She mentioned an experience in another courtroom in which she disconnected the recording system after learning that it was amplifying a sidebar conversation. In a conversation with the chief justice of the district court, she denied having anything to do with the defendant’s release.

In her response, Joseph denied that the defense lawyer told her of a plan to release the defendant through the rear door. In addition, she had no knowledge where the ICE agents were waiting outside the courtroom, the response said.

In her response, Joseph said she suggested detaining Medina-Perez to give the defense lawyer time to investigate his belief that ICE had issued a detainer for the wrong person. Because prosecutors were not seeking bail, she thought that the defendant would be released to ICE after his lawyer spoke with him, she said.

As for the unrecorded sidebar, her experiences as a practicing lawyer “led her to believe that this was an occurrence with no sinister meaning,” her response said.

Joseph was suspended in April 2019 as a result of the federal indictment but was reinstated after the federal charges were dropped in 2022, according to Boston.com. She is currently a judge for the Boston Municipal Court.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge accuses high-profile law firms of possible…

Trials & Litigation

Judge accuses high-profile law firms of possible effort to ‘gum up the works’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 12:49 pm CDT

A federal judge in Boston complained during a status conference Friday that lawyers from three high-profile law firms had filed so many motions and documents that they were failing to keep litigation just, speedy and inexpensive, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts scolded 11 lawyers involved in litigation over the sale of a Mexican funeral company.

Law360 has the story, summarized by Above the Law.

On the one side are lawyers from Boies Schiller Flexner, who represent Servicios Funerarios GG, a Mexican company alleging that it was misled about the financial condition of a funeral business that it bought.

On the other side are lawyers with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and with Ropes & Gray. They represent the Advent International Corp., a U.S. private equity investment company with control of the entities that owned the funeral business before its sale.

After Servicios Funerarios filed the fraud lawsuit, the Advent International Corp. filed counterclaims claiming that it was being extorted.

Talwani said the document-heavy litigation appeared to be “an effort to try to gum up the works.” Law360 published her comments.

“I don’t understand how 11 lawyers can jointly make what we are doing here difficult,” Talwani said. “It is not serving you well—your clients paying your bills—and I do want you to pass this message to your client: In order to try to keep your bills down, it would be helpful to try and figure out whether there are some things that don’t have to be fought about.”

“That might serve your clients,” Talwani said. “It might not serve your pocketbooks, and you can tell your clients that was my comment.”

Talwani spoke after the two sides were unable to agree on a litigation timeline. However, the issues extend beyond the Massachusetts case.

“The litigation has proved complicated,” Law360 reports, “as arrest warrants were filed against Advent personnel in the U.S. and Mexico.”

In addition, a related suit in Delaware chancery court sought to enforce terms of the sale agreement.

Carlos Sires of Boies Schiller Flexner told Law360 that its client “shares the court’s frustration and requested the conference because it wanted to address the delays caused by [the Advent International Corp.’s] objections to the depositions of some of its key employees involved in the [funeral home] transaction.”

Lawyers with Quinn Emanuel and Ropes & Gray did not immediately provide a comment to the ABA Journal in response to its emailed request.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer awarded $3.3M after crashing snowmobile…

Verdicts & Settlements

Lawyer awarded $3.3M after crashing snowmobile into negligently parked Army helicopter

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 26, 2024, 2:28 pm CDT

A federal judge in Massachusetts has awarded $3.3 million in damages to a lawyer for injuries suffered when he crashed his snowmobile into a camouflaged U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter parked on a snowmobile trail at dusk.

U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni of the District of Massachusetts awarded damages to Massachusetts lawyer Jeffrey Smith in a Sept. 23 decision following a bench trial.

The Associated Press and Fox News have coverage.

Mastroianni found that the government was 60% responsible for the 2019 incident because it failed “to take any steps to protect against the obvious risk” that it created from parking the helicopter in the spot. Smith was 40% responsible for speeding and wearing tinted goggles at night, the judge said.

Mastroianni came up with the $3.3 million figure after reducing damages to account for Smith’s comparative negligence and to account for a settlement reached with the landowner. The judge also awarded $100,000 to Smith’s son and $150,000 to his minor daughter.

Smith “suffered life-changing injuries” from the crash in Worthington, Massachusetts, Mastroianni said. He had multiple broken bones, a puncture to his left lung, herniated discs and neurological damage. A neurosurgeon had testified that Smith’s nerves had been “pulled clean out of the spinal cord itself,” making breathing difficult and essentially robbing him of the use of his left arm.

Smith’s law practice suffered because of limited stamina and pain. His net earnings were $134,394 in 2018, before the incident. In 2022, after the incident, he had a net loss of $5,671 because of increased paralegal hours.

The helicopter crew had flown from New York to Worthington for night training before deployment to Afghanistan. The chief warrant officer chose the location to replicate what the crew would see in Afghanistan. He also chose the location so that he could meet and socialize with a friend who lived in the town.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Longtime Boston-based law firm will disband…

Law Firms

Longtime Boston-based law firm will disband after lawyer defections

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 1, 2024, 9:15 am CDT

Boston-based Burns & Levinson is winding down after losing nearly half of its attorneys to other law firms this year.

Burns & Levinson was founded 64 years ago, according to a Sept. 27 statement by Paul R. Mastrocola, the firm’s managing partner. It had more than 100 lawyers before the departures.

Law.com, Law360, Above the Law and the Boston Globe are among the publications with coverage.

“We are sad to bid farewell to this amazing Boston institution; but we know that the lawyers and staff who chose to honor their commitment to one another and remain together throughout this time are the best in the business and will thrive in their new homes,” Mastrocola said.

According to Mastrocola, Burns & Levinson had a record year for revenue in 2023 as a result of courtroom victories, corporate deals and other work.

“The year also brought important—if uncomfortable for some—discussions about governance, compensation and support,” he said.

The defections that began in 2024 included the departure of 13 intellectual property and litigation lawyers to ArentFox Schiff and 28 corporate lawyers to Blank Rome, according to Law.com.

The situation led Burns & Levinson to discuss mergers with other firms.

“Over the past months,” Mastrocola said, “we have been honored by the offers of merger we have received from national and regional firms. Unfortunately, after exhaustive analysis, we have determined that the economics, the timeline and the complexity of deals offered would not work for the remaining partners as a group and for our wonderfully varied practices.”

Burns & Levinson “will continue in the short term and then will engage in an orderly wind down of its operations,” Mastrocola said.

After Mastrocola’s announcement came more news of lawyer departures. Ten lawyers are joining McCarter & English, and 10 others are joining Barclay Damon, report Law.com, Law360 and Reuters.