O'Neil v. Canton Police Department, 116 F.4th 25

Plaintiffs (O'Neil, Svedine, Corby, Silva) protested near a witness’s business in the Karen Read criminal trial in Canton, MA, allegedly to encourage honest testimony.
Police warned the protestors that their actions could be interpreted as witness intimidation under Massachusetts statutes (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268 §§ 13A, 13B) and provided a copy of § 13A.
Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory/injunctive relief, claiming the statutes chill their speech in violation of the First Amendment; they also sought emergency relief ahead of a planned protest.
The district court denied emergency relief, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits and insufficiently at risk of irreparable harm; charges ultimately filed against some plaintiffs were later dismissed by state court for lack of probable cause.
On appeal, the First Circuit found the case moot due to dismissal of state charges and lack of evidence of imminent future prosecution, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MA witness intimidation laws violate the First Amendment as applied to protest	Their protests were protected speech; statutes chill legal speech	Laws protect integrity of proceedings, application was constitutional	Statutes are likely constitutional as applied; no likelihood of success
Whether plaintiffs face imminent threat of irreparable harm	Fear of prosecution chilled their speech	No reason to think further protests will be prosecuted/unlawful	No credible/actual threat; no irreparable harm established
Whether standing and justiciability requirements are met	Plaintiffs have actual, ongoing injury (chilled speech, prior charges)	Charges dismissed; no ongoing or imminent threat	Case is moot due to dismissal, no ongoing controversy
Whether court can issue injunctive relief	Relief needed to prevent future suppression of protests	No live controversy, no concrete conduct to enjoin	Relief not available; mootness bars decision

Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (explains mootness doctrine in federal appellate jurisdiction)
Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Harnett, 731 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (factors for emergency injunctive relief)
N.H. Lottery Comm'n v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2021) (standing and mootness are jurisdictional prerequisites)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (requirements for pre-enforcement First Amendment standing)
Matos v. Clinton Sch. Dist., 367 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2004) (mootness of appeals from denial of preliminary injunctions when underlying controversy changes)