At least three people have been unexpectedly detained in Nashville during routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement since President Donald Trump took office last month, despite having no criminal record, the Nashville Banner reports. Many of those detained were previously considered low-priority for deportation, including individuals with humanitarian reasons for staying in the U.S. While ICE check-ins are a routine part of the immigration process, confusion over court dates and appointments can lead to missed check-ins and removal orders. Although ICE claims to target individuals with criminal records, advocates argue that many detained individuals have no such history. Legal aid for these types of cases remains limited in Tennessee, with only a handful of attorneys specializing in detention cases.

The Law School Survey of Student Engagement’s annual report found that law students are more diverse, increasingly engaged and better prepared than ever, analyzing data trends in legal education from 2004 to 2024. According to the National Jurist, students of color now make up 32% of respondents, up from 17% in 2004. Women account for 60% of law students, compared to 51% in 2004, while LGBTQ+ representation has grown from 4% in 2009 to 17% today. The report also found that over the past two decades, roughly 80% of law students have consistently rated their overall law school experience as good or excellent.

Jonathan Cole, a lawyer with Baker Donelson in Nashville and chair of the American Bar Association House of Delegates, is among five legal experts who will share their reflections from a recent visit to South Texas, where they observed how immigration law and policy are implemented at the border. The free webinar on Feb. 25 will begin at 4 p.m. EST and address the challenges faced by noncitizens at the border and the efforts of the ABA’s ProBAR staff to uphold due process rights for immigrants and asylum-seekers. Those interested in joining the webinar can register on the ABA website.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed a plan to develop a new structure for handling criminal conflicts and civil appointments for indigent clients. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” These entities would provide and manage appointed counsel for individuals who are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to representation. The office would manage an estimated 76,000 cases each year. In developing this plan, the Supreme Court and AOC consulted with legislative leadership and other stakeholders, and examined best practices from other jurisdictions. The Supreme Court and the TBA believe that this new structure will better address the impending crisis in the administration of justice in Tennessee and will also relieve trial judges of the burden of appointing attorneys on their own. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in a series of articles to run in TBA Today.

“How to Sue the Klan: The Legacy of the Chattanooga Five” will be screened on Feb. 26 at the Chattanooga State Community College. The event will take place from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CST in the CC Bond Auditorium of the HUM Building. The film tells the story of four Black women who were shot by local Ku Klux Klan members. In criminal court, an all-white jury acquitted two of the Klansmen and sentenced the third to just nine months. Civil unrest followed the verdict, which also caught the attention of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The center successfully sued the shooters in federal civil court on behalf of the women. The court awarded today’s equivalent of over $1.5 million and issued an injunction against all Klan activities in the city. The suit also served as a precedent to go after the Klan in cities across the nation. Learn more about the story and the film.

Tens of thousands of immigrant children who arrived in the United States without a parent could lose legal representation after federal funding was abruptly put on hold this week, the Daily Memphian reports. Casey Bryant, executive director of Memphis’ Advocates of Immigrant Rights, tells the paper that no one knows how long the stop-work order will last or if funding will eventually resume. The group says it has 200 active cases with minors in Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. Another group, Latino Memphis, has a caseload of 126. Both groups say they will find alternative sources of funding to continue their work. “We’ll figure out how we find the money to do this … we have to keep going. We cannot let these children be hanging out there,” said Latino Memphis Executive Director Mauricio Calvo.

The public has lost the ability to peruse Davidson County Criminal cases as the only mechanism for doing so — two publicly accessible computers at the court — have been removed. The Nashville Banner reports that the court removed the computers because confidential personal information was being entered into the system. “We’re doing that out of an abundance of caution,” Chief Deputy Criminal Court Clerk Julius Sloss said. Those seeking affidavits, legal filings or judicial orders now must make targeted requests for records. The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government Executive Director Deborah Fisher says that is a problem. “The public has a huge interest in the justice system and journalists, who report for the public, have an interest in being able to have access to the system,” she said.

Legal officials in Tennessee are adjusting to a new law that will lengthen sentences for some children convicted of crimes, the Tennessean reports. “Blended sentencing,” which took effect at the start of the year, allows prosecutors to try some youth as “serious youth offenders” who can be given both juvenile and adult sentences. The adult sentence is paused until the child turns 19, when it can be imposed or revoked depending on a handful of criteria. Supporters of blended sentencing argue it closes loopholes that enabled juveniles to commit serious, violent offenses. Opponents say it weakens judicial discretion and hurts children who are not well served by blanket requirements for longer sentences. Nashville Juvenile Court Judge Sheila Calloway talked with the paper about the new law and the challenges she sees with its implementation.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Brittney Silvers, an active member of the United States Army, was shot and killed while living on Fort Campbell, an Army base on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. A jury found Brittney’s estranged husband, Victor Silvers (“Silvers”), guilty of her premeditated murder. Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Silvers to life in prison. On appeal, Silvers challenges his conviction and sentence on three grounds. First, he argues that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the fact that Fort Campbell was within the United States’ special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Second, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying Silvers’s motion to exclude a juror who wore a shirt supporting military veterans during the trial and who had served in the United States Navy, and in failing to ask a broader question during voir dire about prospective jurors’ prior military service. Third, he challenges the constitutionality of his mandatory life sentence, arguing that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the fact of the United States’ jurisdiction over Fort Campbell, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying Silvers relief based on Juror 5’s alleged bias, we AFFIRM his conviction. And because Silvers’s life sentence is constitutional under binding Supreme Court precedent, we also AFFIRM his sentence.

COLE, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Bernhard Jakits of eight counts of child- exploitation-related crimes. On appeal, Jakits argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions on all eight counts, that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on elements of the charged offenses, and that the district court excluded evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. We affirm his convictions on all eight counts. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Jakits’s convictions on all eight counts.