THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Over fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, intending to dramatically restructure the American health-insurance market. But some of its provisions appear to have gone unimplemented and unenforced. In 2024, the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology sued the Secretary and Department of Health and Human Services to compel them to enforce one such provision that prohibits insurers from discriminating against healthcare providers. The Association alleged that private insurers were violating the Act by paying nurse anesthetists less than physician anesthesiologists who provide the same services. And it sought extraordinary relief: a judicial order requiring an executive- branch agency to take unspecified enforcement actions that the Association speculated would remedy the alleged discrimination. Because the Association lacks standing, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of its claims.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles Raymond Locke, Jr., of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his statement to the police and that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to serve twenty-five years in prison. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Roddarrius Eugene Jenkins, the Defendant, was convicted of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, a Class B felony, by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury. See T.C.A § 39-13- 202 (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree murder); § 39-13-403 (2025) (especially aggravated robbery); § 39-17-1307 (2018) (subsequently amended) (felon in possession of a firearm). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) violating his Equal Protection rights by denying his motion to appoint a second attorney, (2) denying his motions to suppress his pretrial statements, (3) admitting the Defendant’s uncorroborated statements as evidence, (4) denying, at the close of the State’s proof, the Defendant’s request for a self-defense instruction, (5) restricting the scope of the codefendant’s cross-examination, and (6) finding enhancement factors applied to the Defendant’s sentence. The Defendant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed this action against a trial court judge who had presided over a prior lawsuit involving the plaintiff. The Shelby County Circuit Court (“trial court”) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, determining that they were barred by judicial immunity. The plaintiff timely appealed. Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we dismiss this appeal.

Both the employee and the employer take issue with the trial court’s order in this interlocutory appeal. The employee injured her back at work, and the employer provided certain workers’ compensation benefits, including authorized medical care. The employer later declined to approve a surgery recommended by the authorized provider after that physician opined that her need for the surgery was not primarily related to her work injury and placed her at maximum medical improvement for her work-related condition. The employee sought unauthorized treatment from another provider, who opined that her work accident was primarily responsible for the advancement of her pre-existing condition and the need for surgery. After an expedited hearing, the trial court issued an order finding that the employee’s expert medical proof on medical causation was sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption afforded to the authorized provider and ordered treatment, including surgery as recommended, with the authorized provider. However, the court denied the employee’s request for additional temporary disability benefits, finding that she had been placed at maximum medical improvement and had presented no proof that this determination was premature or incorrect. Both parties have appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order in all respects and remand the case.

In this interlocutory appeal, we hold that this Court’s holding in Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021), does not mandate dismissal as a matter of law of the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims. Here, the plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit under the Tennessee Products Liability Act against the defendant alleged manufacturer of a seatbelt extender. The lawsuit claimed that the defendant was required to warn of risks of using the seatbelt extender in combination with a child’s booster seat, manufactured by another defendant, but the defendant failed to do so. After a mistrial, the trial court granted permission for interlocutory appeal on the question of whether Coffman bars the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims for risks associated with using the defendant’s product with another manufacturer’s product. The Court of Appeals granted the interlocutory appeal and held that Coffman bars the plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. We reverse the Court of Appeals and clarify that the holding in Coffman does not mandate dismissal of the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In this appeal, we hold that this Court’s holding in Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021), does not mandate dismissal as a matter of law of the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims. Here, the plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit under the Tennessee Products Liability Act against the defendant manufacturer of a child’s booster seat. The lawsuit claimed the defendant was required to warn of risks of using the booster seat in combination with a seatbelt extender, manufactured by another defendant, but failed to do so. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Coffman bars the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims for risks associated with using the defendant’s product with another manufacturer’s product. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that Coffman bars the plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. We reverse the Court of Appeals and clarify that the holding in Coffman does not mandate dismissal of the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani (GRSM) recently announced the opening of a Memphis office, expanding its Tennessee footprint from its current Nashville and Knoxville locations. “Opening our Memphis office represents another important milestone in GRSM’s continued strategic growth across Tennessee and the Southeast,” said Heather Gwinn, managing partner of the Memphis office. “With more than 40 attorneys serving clients from this location, we are well-positioned to deliver the responsive, local counsel our clients expect while leveraging the resources and collaborative strength of our national platform.” The new office is located at 1331 Union Ave., 7th Floor, Suite 1023, Memphis 38104.

The TBA will host the “Using AI to Accelerate Your Writing” webcast replay on July 24 from noon to 1 p.m. CDT, focusing on how attorneys can use artificial intelligence (AI) to improve efficiency in legal writing without sacrificing accuracy or professional judgment. Presenter Ryan Standil of Write To Excite will discuss effective prompting techniques and demonstrate how AI can help lawyers identify weaknesses in drafts, including faulty logic, ambiguity, inconsistency and tone issues. The program also will address the limitations of AI in legal communication, including verbosity, overreach and lack of human nuance, while offering strategies for using AI tools more effectively in practice. More information and a link to register are available on the TBA website.

The Vanderbilt Law Admissions Team has launched a podcast to help prospective law students better navigate the application process. "Behind the Decision," featuring Dean of Admissions Cristina Gapasin Tortal and Associate Director Erin Preston, offers an insider perspective on how applications are evaluated and what prospective candidates should and should not do to stand out. Each episode tackles specific admissions-related questions that the team regularly addresses each application cycle. The first episode, "Should You Go to Law School?," explores what admissions personnel look for when evaluating an applicant’s readiness for law school. Read more in a press release from the school.