A federal three-judge panel has denied an injunction in a combined case that included constitutional challenges to Tennessee’s new congressional map, the Daily Memphian reports. The combined case was the last of a number of suits — including one from Democratic congressional candidates and one from the state chapter of the NAACP  — following the Tennessee General Assembly’s approval of the new map in May. The panel was made up of two judges from the Middle District of Tennessee — Chief District Judge William Lynn "Chip" Campbell Jr. and District Judge Gregory Stivers — and Judge John B. Nalbandian of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel said in its order that the ACLU of Tennessee and Memphis clergy failed to prove their 1st Amendment rights had been violated by the new map. It also ruled there was no evidence that the map was created with racial animus. Plaintiffs now have 30 days to file an appeal with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a press release issued after the ruling, the ACLU said it would “continue litigating the case and pursuing permanent relief.”

The TBA Law Tech Section will offer a free webinar on Aug. 5 from noon to 1 p.m. CDT to explore the degree to which AI "entities" can be held liable for criminal activity. David Thaw, associate research professor of law and computing & information at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, will provide an overview of the fundamental processes by which contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) operate — including how they impersonate human-like activity — and then explore how this understanding can inform other areas of legal practice and how criminal law views the concept of volitional action. Learn more and register on the TBA website.

The TBA will rebroadcast its joint program with the Tennessee Alliance of Black Lawyers (TABL) from this summer's Convention on July 31 from noon to 1 p.m. CDT. The session examines the balance between governmental interests in public safety and individuals’ constitutional rights to privacy, and addresses legal considerations around constitutional issues such as freedom of speech and unreasonable searches and seizures. The program features a panel of speakers with expertise in civil rights, constitutional law and artificial intelligence. Learn more and register on the TBA website.

The Tennessee Supreme Court Boot Camp will take place Wednesday, Oct. 7. Produced by the TBA Appellate Practice Section, this unique opportunity allows attendees to view oral arguments in real cases, followed by a panel discussion with the justices. The program also features a networking lunch, ethics presentation and a discussion with advocates who participated in the oral arguments. Don’t miss this chance to meet with and learn from the Tennessee Supreme Court justices and connect with colleagues from across the state. Appellate Practice Section members receive a discounted rate to attend. Register now.

Make plans now to join CLE instructor Russell Fowler on Aug. 6 for a live webcast on “The Top 10 Tennessee Lawyers from 1790 to 1960.” The course will offer a fast-moving survey of the state’s dramatic, diverse and inspiring legal history from the territorial period to modern times as seen through the lens of litigators, judges and scholars who advanced the profession. Learn more and register on the TBA website. Looking for more from Fowler? Check out his on-demand course “Famous Tennessee Trials.”

The TBA Health Law Section will host a free webinar exploring the rewards and practical risks involved when using AI in law. Panelists Himanshu Agrawara, CEO at Verbotics AI, and Jin Yoshikawa, a member of Butler Snow’s Drug and Medical Device Litigation Practice Group, will describe when and how these risks manifest, and how users become aware of and avoid them while using AI. Also covered will be how a law firm can control costs, and whether they should be assumed by the client. One hour of general CLE credit is available for a $50 processing fee. Learn more and register here.

The American Bar Association (ABA) released Formal Opinion 524 on July 22 to clarify government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s or employee’s violation or intended violation of a legal obligation or the law. The opinion states that government lawyers should look to Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13(b) and (c) when they know of an intended or ongoing violation that would be “imputed” to the organization and likely or reasonably certain to result in “substantial injury to the organization.” The opinion concludes that credibility of government depends on compliance with the law and that lawbreaking by the government causes injury not just to third party victims, but also to the public’s trust in government and, ultimately, to the government entity itself. Read more in a press release from the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics And Professional Responsibility.

On July 23, Washington County lawyer Harold Wayne Graves received a public censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility. The board found that Graves violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.15 and 1.16(d) while representing a client in a closed probate matter. Graves’ client was a named beneficiary who requested that Graves review the court record and other documentation to confirm the estate had been properly administered. The board found that the fee agreement failed to adequately define the scope of representation. The board also found that after agreeing to represent the client, Graves delayed taking action and failed to respond to the client’s communications. Finally, following discharge, Graves failed to respond to the client’s requests for file materials and a refund of fees.

HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. Kevin Fordham, Martin Murff, and Eddie Reid held top posts within the Almighty Vice Lord Nation. Following a lengthy investigation into Vice Lord operations in Michigan, law-enforcement officers arrested dozens of members in an effort to dismantle the organization’s leadership. Dozens of plea agreements resulted. But Fordham, Murff, and Reid opted for trial. After four weeks of proceedings, a jury convicted each of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and related crimes. All three defendants appealed. Their consolidated cases present four suppression issues, two Sixth Amendment claims, two sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, and a sentencing dispute. Of those, only Fordham’s procedural sentencing challenge has merit. We therefore vacate Fordham’s sentence, remand for Fordham’s resentencing, and otherwise affirm.

The parties to this appeal were divorced in Virginia, and the divorce decree provided that they would alternate parenting time with their young child every three weeks. The mother moved to Tennessee, and the father later moved to Minnesota. After residing in Tennessee for ten months, the mother filed a petition in Tennessee seeking to have the Tennessee court enforce the Virginia divorce decree with respect to her allegations of contempt and modify the Virginia decree to name her primary residential parent. The father subsequently sought to register the Virginia decree in Minnesota. After a hearing, the Tennessee court found that Virginia had lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction because all parties had left that state and that Tennessee now had jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree because it qualified as the child’s home state. However, the Tennessee court declined to exercise its jurisdiction upon finding that Minnesota would be a more convenient forum for the litigation, primarily based on the fact that the Virginia divorce decree contained an agreement of the parties stating that the child would be enrolled in school in Minnesota upon reaching school age if the father was still residing there. The trial court dismissed the petition and awarded the father a portion of his attorney fees. The mother appeals, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in its analysis of the statutory factors under the inconvenient forum statute, erred by dismissing her request for enforcement of the Virginia decree, and erred by granting the father his attorney fees. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and its award of attorney fees. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion