MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Bourbon has been the cause of many Kentucky controversies. “The idea of ‘the first distiller,’” for example, “has bemused Kentucky historians and writers for well over a century.” Henry G. Crowgey, Kentucky Bourbon: The Early Years of Whiskeymaking 24 (1971). Was the first distiller Evan Williams? Elijah Craig? Some long-forgotten settler? See id. at 24–25. And where was this drink first distilled—in Georgetown in 1789 or Fort Harrod in 1774? See Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2012). This case involves a similar controversy: Which African American-owned company first distilled bourbon? Victory Global (which does business as Brough Brothers) claims to have become the “first” when it opened its physical distillery in 2020. But Fresh Bourbon counters that it was the “first” because its owners physically distilled their brand at another company’s distillery two years earlier. Disagreeing with Fresh Bourbon’s claim, Brough Brothers sued it for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Brough Brothers, though, fails to identify any unambiguously false statements that Fresh Bourbon made, so it had the burden to introduce evidence that Fresh Bourbon’s statements had deceived consumers. It made no effort to do so. The district court thus properly granted summary judgment to Fresh Bourbon. We affirm.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Linda Elam resided at a nursing home in Lexington, Kentucky, in the weeks leading up to her death. Shortly before she died, Elam was diagnosed with several serious illnesses. Bonnie Townsend, Elam’s sister and estate executor, sued BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living Inc., and American Retirement Corporation (collectively, “BLC Lexington”) in Kentucky state court, bringing claims related to Elam’s care and death. BLC Lexington then filed a complaint in federal court, asking the district court to enjoin the state-court proceedings and compel Townsend to arbitrate her claims. The district court found the parties’ arbitration agreement enforceable and compelled arbitration for nearly all of Townsend’s claims. After a week-long arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in BLC Lexington’s favor on all claims. The district court confirmed the arbitration award. Because we agree with the district court’s decisions compelling arbitration and confirming the arbitration award, we affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. High-level prison officials cannot operate prisons by themselves. They must assign many duties to others. This case requires us to consider when these officials might violate the Eighth Amendment if the contractors tasked with providing medical care and preventing the spread of infectious diseases perform incompetently. For several years, women detained in a Michigan prison suffered from painful rashes. Their medical providers mistakenly ruled out a contagious condition: scabies. Much later, though, an outside dermatologist found that these providers had misdiagnosed the women and that scabies had spread through the prison. Four inmates incarcerated during this time seek damages not just from the medical providers but also from various prison officials who did not treat them. The district court held that the complaint plausibly pleaded that all defendants committed “clearly established” violations of the Eighth Amendment. It thus denied the defendants’ request for qualified immunity. The non-treating prison officials have appealed. And we agree with them that our precedent would not have clearly conveyed that their reliance on the front-line medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. On the other hand, the inmates adequately pleaded that these officials were the proximate cause of their injuries under Michigan law. We thus reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and affirm its denial of state-law immunity.

Gov. Bill Lee has appointed Judge Stacy Street to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Eastern Section. Street currently is serving as a criminal court judge in the 1st Judicial District. He earned his bachelor’s degree from East Tennessee State University and law degree from the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law. Street’s appointment fills a vacancy created by Judge Kyle Hixson’s elevation to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The appointment is effective July 7 and is subject to legislative confirmation. Read more in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Petitioner, Shun M. Ramey, acting pro se, appeals the Wilson County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. After review, we affirm.

In this case, two brothers accused each other of exerting undue influence on their aging mother, Latona Joyce Walsh. Timothy Walsh (“Defendant”) alleged that his brother Anthony Walsh (“Plaintiff”) had exerted undue influence over Ms. Walsh, resulting in her deeding her home to him, naming him as the executor of her estate, and placing his name on her bank accounts approximately four years before her death. Shortly before her death, Ms. Walsh made Defendant her attorney-in-fact and Plaintiff’s name was removed from her accounts. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant had exerted undue influence over Ms. Walsh, and Defendant filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff for undue influence. Ms. Walsh died two days later. The Chancery Court for Anderson County (“the Trial Court”) found that both sons had exerted undue influence over their mother but that Defendant had not dissipated any of her assets, unlike Plaintiff. The Trial Court accordingly ordered that Ms. Walsh’s home was part of her estate and was to be distributed by the terms of her 1991 will. The Trial Court further credited Plaintiff with receiving $49,000 in rental income from renting his mother’s home after her death. Plaintiff appeals the Trial Court’s finding of undue influence. Based upon our review, we affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors, an 18-year-old Nashville nonprofit providing free or low-cost immigration legal services, has adopted a co-directorship model — bringing on Melinda Noblitt alongside existing leader Tessa Lemos Del Pino — to handle the surge in demand driven by rapidly changing immigration policy. Caseloads have nearly doubled, jumping from about 1,000 cases in 2024 to nearly 1,900 in 2025, with staff also fielding around 2,000 calls from people seeking help, information or referrals. The nonprofit says immigrants with legal status are being detained because officers often don't understand the complexity of documentation. With the new leadership structure, the organization aims to build more nonprofit partnerships, pursue additional grant funding and expand capacity — while helping immigrants understand their constitutional rights in the current climate. The Nashville Business Journal has the story.

This appeal arises from a modification of a Permanent Parenting Plan (“PPP”), pursuant to which Randy Arnold, (“Father”) replaced Kamilah Sanders, (“Mother”), as the primary residential parent of the parties’ only child. Mother timely filed a Motion to Review the decision of the juvenile court magistrate pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1- 107, which motion the juvenile court judge denied. This appeal followed. We affirm the ruling of the juvenile court and remand with instructions to set child support.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently proposed a rule that would rescind the Biden administration's 2024 independent contractor rule and replace it with a framework modeled on the 2021 rule, re-centering the worker classification analysis on two core factors: the degree of control over work and the worker's opportunity for profit or loss. According to Bloomberg Law, unlike the 2024 rule's six-factor equal-weight analysis, the new proposal treats other considerations as secondary and emphasizes that actual working practices matter more than contractual language. Employers currently face a split landscape, as the DOL has already shifted its enforcement approach away from the 2024 rule, while private plaintiffs can still invoke it in court until it is formally rescinded. The proposal is not yet final — public comments are due by April 28 — and employers using contractor models are advised to review their classification practices, keeping in mind that stricter state laws will continue to apply regardless of the federal outcome.