The TBA has announced the selection of 35 attorneys from across the state for its 2025 Leadership Law (TBALL) program. Now in its 22nd year, Leadership Law is designed to equip Tennessee lawyers with the vision, knowledge and skills necessary to serve as leaders in their profession and local communities. The class will meet for its first session in January and spend the next six months learning about leadership in the legal profession, issues in the courts, policymaking in state government and the importance of community service. Read more about the new class members.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division's Mock Trial Committee is seeking sitting judges and attorneys to serve as volunteers at the 2025 Tennessee State High School Mock Trial Competition, which will take place March 21-22, 2025, in Nashville. The 2025 case material was released in December and district mock trial competitions will take place in February. Teams will argue the civil case of Lee Jasper v. Reece Witherfork, which takes place at a rodeo. Teams prevailing at the district level will advance to the state competition. The problem, rules and other competition information can be found on the TBA website. Those interested in helping at the state competition should indicate availability on this form. This year also marks the inaugural Artist in the Courtroom Competition, which invites student artists to interpret mock trial courtroom scenes during the district competition. The top three entries will be announced at the state competiton award ceremony. The top student artist will join the state championship team in representing Tennessee at the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Phoenix, Arizona, on May 8-10, 2025.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted amendments to Rule 54. The court noted that the changes were requested by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The rules will take effect immediately. View the red-line changes to the rule in the court’s order.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules of Civil Procedure, which now are subject to legislative consideration. If approved by the General Assembly, the rules will take effect on July 1, 2025.

The Tennessee Supreme Court immediately suspended Hamilton County lawyer Alan Christopher Norton from the practice of law until further order. The court took the action after it found that Norton posed a threat of substantial harm to the public. The suspension will remain in effect until dissolution or modification by the court. Previous reporting indicated that Norton was charged with forgery after an investigation found he allegedly forged a judge's signature on court documents.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. A grand jury indicted Jaylin Morton for possessing a firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Morton moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prosecution violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied his motion, and Morton conditionally pleaded guilty. Morton now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. Because Morton’s criminal history demonstrates dangerousness, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in this court’s recent decision in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024). We affirm.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case raises familiar issues. Randell Shepherd, a career coal miner, brought a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act and invoked the Act’s presumption that—because he had mined for over fifteen years and was totally disabled by a combination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), bronchitis, and emphysema—he was entitled to federal benefits for disability due to pneumoconiosis, also known as coal worker’s black lung. Incoal, Inc., Shepherd’s most recent coal-mining employer and the operator potentially liable for his benefits, challenged his entitlement to those benefits, submitting expert reports that, according to Incoal, demonstrated that Shepherd’s smoking history and not his mining history was the cause of his disability. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Incoal’s expert opinions were not well reasoned or documented, first, because they conflicted with the Act’s regulations and underlying principles as described in the preamble to the Act’s implementing regulations and, second, because the opinions were internally inconsistent and unreasoned. Incoal had, the ALJ held, failed to rebut the presumption that Shepherd was entitled to coal miners’ benefits. Incoal appealed to the Benefits Review Board (“BRB” or “Board”), which affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. After Mark Blackwell criticized the city manager of a small Michigan city, the manager complained about him to the police. Two officers convinced a prosecutor to charge Blackwell with stalking. But a judge acquitted him. Blackwell then sued the manager and officers for violating the First Amendment by inducing this prosecution in retaliation for his political speech. The district court held that his complaint alleged enough facts to rebut the city officials’ qualified-immunity defense at the pleading stage. The officials now appeal. We agree that Blackwell plausibly pleaded that the officials sought to prosecute him in retaliation for his speech and without probable cause that he had committed a crime. We also reject the officials’ premature efforts to bolster their defense with outside-the-complaint evidence. We thus affirm.

The Defendant, Artevious Moore, Jr., pled guilty to theft of property and was placed on judicial diversion. Thereafter, the Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, leaving sentencing to the trial court. He also agreed to have the trial court rescind his judicial diversion, enter an adjudication of guilt as to the theft charge, and allow the court to impose the sentence. After a consolidated sentencing hearing, the court denied alternative sentencing and sentenced the Defendant to three years for the aggravated assault conviction and two years for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be aligned consecutively for an effective sentence of five years to be served in confinement. The Defendant appealed, challenging the consecutive sentences and the denial of alternative sentencing. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Defendant, Travis Andrew Harris, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and possession of a firearm by a felon convicted of a violent crime. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial as to his premeditation and identity was insufficient to support his murder conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Defendant’s conviction. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.