Rocket Learning, Inc. v. Rivera-Sanchez, 715 F.3d 1

Rocket Learning, Inc. sued the Puerto Rico Secretary of Education in his personal and official capacity under §1983 for 2010-2011 SES enrollment changes.
The PRDE administers the SES program under No Child Left Behind; providers compete after certification for student enrollment.
In 2010 the PRDE issued a New Manual restricting promotional gifts and requiring disclosure of teaching devices; this superseded the Old Manual.
Rocket Learning’s proposal did not specify all devices, while other providers promoted end-of-course electronic gifts.
The PRDE’s December 2010 actions, including retroactive application of the New Manual, allegedly reduced Rocket Learning’s enrollment by 50-60% relative to prior year.
The district court dismissed the complaint and later held that the Secretary was entitled to qualified immunity on all claims; on appeal the First Circuit affirms on qualified immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Secretary’s actions violated equal protection under qualified immunity	Rocket Learning contends disparate treatment between providers.	Secretary asserts rational basis and non-similarly situated groups.	Qualified immunity shields Secretary; no clearly established violation.
Whether procedural due process was violated by changes to enrollment procedures	Rocket Learning asserts loss of a property interest without adequate notice or challenge.	No cognizable property interest; process provided was not deficient.	Qualified immunity barred due to lack of a cognizable property interest and adequate process.
Whether there was a plausible First Amendment commercial speech claim	Rocket Learning claims freedom to promote electronic devices as gifts.	Promotions were restricted to prevent misleading incentive practices; within Central Hudson framework.	Qualified immunity; promotion deemed misleading and not protected.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard as immunity from suit)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (deciding order of steps in qualified immunity analysis)
Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework in First Circuit)
Anderson v. Creigton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (clarifies clearly established inquiry)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (contextualized clearly established rights)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (framework for commercial speech protection)
Wine & Spirits Retailers, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 481 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (application of Central Hudson to promotional speech)
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (license/procedural due process rights)
González-Droz v. González-Colón, 660 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (property interest and licenses context)
Indus. Safety Equip. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 837 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (certifications as property interests)