Efreom v. McKee, 46 F.4th 9

Background:

Rhode Island enacted the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act (RIRSA) in 2011, cutting COLAs and altering pension benefits to address serious underfunding.
Multiple state-court suits (including Clifford) challenged RIRSA; parties negotiated a class settlement that required passage of the 2015 Amendments to implement improved benefits.
The Rhode Island Superior Court certified a retiree subclass under Rule 23(b)(2) (no opt-outs), held a contested fairness hearing, approved the settlement, and entered final judgment; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
The settlement included covenants limiting parties’ advocacy for retirement legislation; those covenants expired once the 2015 Amendments were enacted and judgment entered.
In 2020 forty-nine retired class members (appellants) sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Due Process, Takings, Contract Clause violations (Counts I–IV) and First Amendment petition/speech claims attacking the settlement covenants (Count V).
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Rooker–Feldman), res judicata, and lack of Article III standing; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts I–IV are barred by Rooker–Feldman	Efreom says claims target the 2015 Amendments (a distinct, post‑settlement law) so federal court can adjudicate	Defendants say plaintiffs are state‑court losers seeking to undo the state‑court settlement/judgment	Rooker–Feldman applies; Counts I–IV dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction
Whether denial of an opt‑out under Rule 23(b)(2) creates a due‑process exception to Rooker–Feldman	Appellants say class certification denied them due process and thus an exception should apply	Defendants say class certification and opt‑out issue were litigated and rejected in state court	No exception: state courts fully considered certification/opt‑out; Rooker–Feldman still bars review
Whether the settlement covenants violated First Amendment petition/speech rights and are justiciable	Appellants claim covenants chilled advocacy and seek declaratory relief invalidating them	Defendants note the covenants expired upon enactment and judgment, so no ongoing injury to redress	No Article III standing for declaratory/injunctive relief; First Amendment claim nonjusticiable (dismissed)
Whether relabeling claims under the U.S. Constitution avoids Rooker–Feldman	Appellants argue new federal constitutional theories create independent federal claims	Defendants argue parties cannot evade Rooker–Feldman by recasting issues; relief would effectively overturn state judgment	Recasting does not avoid Rooker–Feldman; federal court lacks jurisdiction to review state‑court judgment

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal district courts lack authority to review final state court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (further defining limits on federal review of state court decisions)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (clarified Rooker–Feldman scope: bars federal suits that effectively seek appellate review of state judgments)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must resolve jurisdictional questions before reaching merits)
Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (distinguishes state‑court decisions from statutes/rules that may be challenged in federal court)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016) (addresses when changed facts may permit new federal challenges; not persuasive here)
Clifford v. Raimondo, 184 A.3d 673 (R.I. 2018) (Rhode Island Supreme Court affirming class certification and settlement approval)
Cranston Firefighters, IAFF Loc. 1363 v. Raimondo, 880 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2018) (background on Rhode Island pension reforms)
Sinapi v. R.I. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 910 F.3d 544 (1st Cir. 2018) (application of Rooker–Feldman in the First Circuit)
Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (only the U.S. Supreme Court may invalidate state court civil judgments)