Over the past two months, members of the TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) have been visiting law schools across the state. Alex Bunn, Cole Harrell-Morris and Jennifer Sneed joined together for a final stop at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Students were encouraged to apply to the YLD's new Rural Judicial Fellowship program and the award-winning DLI program, as well as to reach out to members of the TBA while still in law school. Memphis Law student Divine Dent, a graduate of the DLI Class of 2025, also participated and shared her experience with the program. See photos from the day.

READLER, Circuit Judge. The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association and several individual members (together “the Farmers”) sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture, challenging the agency’s policy of disallowing applications to one of its programs filed on behalf of deceased relatives, which the Farmers wished to do here. The district court dismissed their lawsuit, holding that the relevant statute required the USDA to accept applications from living farmers only. We agree, and thus affirm the district court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Outdoor One Communications LLC (Outdoor) applied for a permit to put up a billboard in Canton Township, Michigan. Canton denied the application because the proposed sign violated the local sign ordinance’s height and size restrictions. Outdoor then challenged Canton’s sign ordinance in federal court on various First Amendment grounds, including that the ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The district court denied Outdoor’s claims for lack of standing, and this court affirmed. Outdoor has since filed another suit, once again alleging that the ordinance acts as a prior restraint. The district court determined that res judicata precluded the action and dismissed it. Because issue preclusion bars only part of the claim, and Outdoor has otherwise alleged standing, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Rodney Miller, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of rape of a child, aggravated statutory rape, and aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the Petitioner initially argues that the order of the post-conviction court is insufficient for appellate review. He further claims that each of his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to the State’s improper voir dire, in failing to effectively cross-examine the victim at trial, and in failing to adequately advise the Petitioner of his right to testify. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the cumulative effect of trial counsels’ deficiencies deprived him of his right to a fair trial.1 After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from an order suspending a mother’s parenting time until she completes a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35 mental health evaluation. Because the order does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

In this conservatorship action, the trial court’s appointment of the ward’s stepdaughter as conservator has been appealed by the ward’s nephew and ostensibly the ward herself. Because the record leaves us unable to discern the basis of the trial court’s decisions, we vacate the trial court’s ruling and remand for the entry of an appropriate order.

Ambreia Washington (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of, among other offenses, unlawful possession of a firearm. Before trial, the Defendant moved to suppress the firearm a law enforcement officer seized from the vehicle the Defendant was driving. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments, including the trial court’s ruling on the suppression issue. We granted permission to appeal to determine the legality of the officer’s warrantless seizure of the firearm. We hold that the seizure was constitutionally permissible under the plain view doctrine. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today upheld the conviction of Ambreia Washington, ruling that the warrantless seizure of a firearm from his vehicle did not violate the U.S. Constitution. In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins, the court found that the handgun was properly seized under the “plain view exception,” which allows law enforcement officers to confiscate incriminating evidence seen in plain sight without a warrant. In this case, a Jackson Police Department officer responding to a car accident saw a handgun in the passenger seat and later learned that Washington was a convicted felon. The court concluded that the firearm was lawfully seized and admissible at trial. Justice Dwight E. Tarwater wrote a concurring opinion addressing the plain view doctrine’s “immediately apparent” requirement and its relationship to the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Emmitt Martin III, the only former Memphis police officer charged in connection with the 2023 death of Tyre Nichols who was still in custody, is being released from jail. Martin, who pleaded guilty last year to federal charges related to Nichols’ death, will be released today, The Daily Memphian reports. U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman granted his release Tuesday after a nearly two-hour hearing. Martin was initially released on bond after being charged but was taken back into custody in February for allegedly harassing the mother of his child, violating his bond conditions. His attorneys said he has been held in solitary confinement since then, harming his mental and physical health. Under the conditions of his release, Martin must spend 90 days in a mental health treatment facility and continue treatment afterward. He also will be subject to GPS monitoring and drug testing and is prohibited from contacting his child, the child’s mother, or any of the other former officers charged in Nichols’ death. Lipman also suggested Martin’s sentencing, tentatively set for December, could be delayed if his co-defendants are granted new federal trials.

A federal judge in Nashville ruled there is a “realistic likelihood” the government acted vindictively in bringing human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador before being brought to Tennessee in June to face criminal charges. According to the Tennessee Lookout, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s ruling on Friday allows Abrego Garcia's attorneys to seek documents and testimony from Trump administration officials about their public remarks and the basis for the decision to pursue charges. In granting the request to proceed with this claim, Crenshaw cited the timeline of official actions leading up to the charges as evidence of the “potential unreasonableness of the prosecution.” Prosecutors have denied that the government acted with any “ill will” in the case. No date for a hearing has been set.