Perez-Kudzma v. United States, 940 F.3d 142

After Hurricane Maria, DHS issued a 10-day Jones Act waiver on Sept. 28, 2017 to facilitate shipments to Puerto Rico; waivers issued earlier in Sept. 2017 covered other storms and periods.
On Oct. 2, 2017, five plaintiffs (property owners, some Massachusetts residents, some Puerto Rico residents) sued the U.S., President, and DHS Secretary in D. Mass., seeking an indefinite extension of the waiver and alleging constitutional violations and a public-trust theory.
Plaintiffs claimed the government's refusal to extend the waiver indefinitely increased shipping costs, which hindered rebuilding, rental income, professional activities, travel, and access to medical services.
The district court denied a TRO and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the First Circuit focused on Article III standing, concluding plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead concrete, particularized, traceable, and redressable injuries tied to DHS's decision; the judgment was vacated and remanded for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing	Plaintiffs alleged concrete harms from higher shipping costs that hinder rebuilding, income, professions, and travel	Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek ongoing injunctive relief because alleged harms are generalized and not tied to defendants' action	Plaintiffs failed to allege particularized, concrete injuries traceable to the decision; no Article III standing
Causation / Traceability	Non-waiver of Jones Act increased shipping costs, causing the specific harms alleged	Post-hurricane damages and many other factors could explain higher costs; complaint lacks facts linking harms to Jones Act decision	Court found no plausible factual allegations showing injuries were fairly traceable to defendants' conduct
Redressability	An injunction extending the waiver indefinitely would redress plaintiffs' alleged harms	Redressability is speculative; if plaintiffs do not seek ongoing relief the claims are moot	Court held redressability speculative; noted claims are moot if no ongoing injunctive relief sought; dismissal on jurisdictional grounds required
Pleading standard / Review	Complaint sufficient to survive 12(b)(6)	Standing is a jurisdictional issue and must be pleaded with plausible supporting facts	Court reviewed de novo and concluded plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts to establish Article III standing; vacated and remanded for dismissal

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must assure Article III jurisdiction before addressing merits)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (elements of Article III standing)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (plaintiff bears burden to plead facts plausibly demonstrating standing)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, traceable, and redressable injury)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (generalized grievances insufficient for standing)
Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (standing review is de novo)
Gustavsen v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must plead sufficient factual matter to plausibly demonstrate standing)
Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724 (1st Cir. 2016) (pleading standards for Article III standing)
Horizon Bank & Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2004) (mootness when no effectual relief can be granted)