The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments April 7 and 8 at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Judges John W. Campbell, Camille R. McMullen and Robert W. Wedemeyer sat for the court. “This year marks 50 years since my graduation from the Law School, and it was an honor to be back and to talk to students, faculty, and Dean Jim Strickland. Judge Campbell and I are both Memphis Law grads and we shared some of our law school memories with the students,” Wedemeyer said after the proceedings. The law school hosted the oral argument for the court while the Jackson courthouse undergoes renovations. The change of venue provided a unique opportunity for law students to observe the appeals process and ask questions of both the attorneys and the judges. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) or watch the arguments on the AOC's Youtube channel.

Question 1 and 2: When a reduction in teaching positions becomes necessary within a Local Education Agency (LEA), what statutory rights are afforded to tenured teachers? Does the most current version of the statute afford any protections to non-tenured teachers?

Opinions 1 and 2: Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-511(b), which sets forth procedures and rights when a reduction in force (RIF) becomes necessary, makes no distinction for tenured or non-tenured teachers; the same protections are afforded to both. That statute gives teachers the following statutory protections: (1) a dismissal due to a reduction in force is tied to level of effectiveness determined by performance evaluations under Tenn. Code Ann. 49-1-302; (2) the teacher must receive written notice of dismissal with full explanation of circumstances and conditions making dismissal necessary; and (3) certain teachers are placed on a reemployment list based on their effectiveness ratings. It should be noted that tenured teachers may be dismissed only by the LEA. The authority to dismiss tenured teachers has not been delegated by statute to the director of schools. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE); see Kelley v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 3d 842, 853 (W.D. Tenn. 2016).

Question 3: What are the key differences between the 2012 and 2014 versions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511?

Opinion 3: Which statutory differences are most important likely depends on the reader. Therefore, we are providing a full comparison of the two versions to the requester.

Question 4: In the event of a Reduction in Force (RIF), may non-tenured teachers be displaced by tenured teachers?

Opinion 4: Potentially yes. The LEA is empowered to dismiss teachers and non-licensed employees based on their “level of effectiveness, ” which may result in non-tenured teachers being displaced by tenured teachers in a RIF situation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1).

Question 5: Regarding Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(4)(A), (B), what is the statutory interpretation of the term “preferred list” for employment? Since “preferred” is not explicitly defined in the Tennessee Code, does it take on its ordinary and natural meaning?

Opinion 5: The phrases “the preferred list for employment” and “list for reemployment” appear in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) and (4) and are synonymous. To construe a statute, “we must decide ‘how a reasonable reader, fully competent in the language, would have understood the text at the time it was issued.’” State v. Deberry, 651 S.W.3d 918, 924 (2022) (quoting ANTONIN SCALIA & BRIAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 33 (2012)). And we must give statutory words their “natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear and in light of the statute’s general purpose.” Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 827 (Tenn. 2015) (cleaned up). Subsection (b)(3) refers to the “list for reemployment” on which certain teachers must be placed when dismissed due to a reduction of force. Subsection (b)(4) then refers to the terms of the employee’s “right to remain on the preferred list.” These two consecutive subsections plainly contemplate the same list. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has construed the term “preferred list” on multiple occasions but only as to earlier versions of the statute. See Lee v. Franklin Special Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 237 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Effective July 1, 2014, subsection (b)(3) was amended to remove the phrase “in the first vacancy the teacher is qualified by training and experience to fill” after “list for reemployment.” Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) (2012) with § 49-5-511(b)(3) (2014). This amendment changed the fundamental purpose of the list and thus the interpretation of “preferred” in subsection (b)(4). Cases like Lee therefore have limited application to the interpretative task at hand. Subsection(b)(3) requires that “[a] teacher rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302” and dismissed due to a reduction in force, be placed on a list for reemployment. Subsection (b)(4) then requires that the teacher remain on the list until “accepting a bona fide offer for reemployment for a comparable position within the LEA” or “rejects four (4) bona fide offers for reemployment for comparable positions within the LEA.” The phrase “preferred list” describes the “list for reemployment,” and permits teachers to remain on the list until certain, enumerated conditions are met. Id. No distinction is made between tenured and non-tenured teachers. Nor can rank or order be attributed to the way teachers are selected from the list for comparable positions within the LEA for offers of reemployment. The use of the undefined word “preferred” to describe the list of teachers in § 49-5- 511(b)(4) indicates that teachers who receive the highest ratings on their evaluations under § 49- 1-302 are to be considered more favorably over less effective teachers who are rated lower based on the same evaluations. See Davis v. Reilly, 683 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tenn. 2024) (“When the statute does not define a term, we may look to authoritative dictionaries”); PREFERRED, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (“Possessing or accorded a priority or privilege; favored”). Thus, the terms “list for reemployment” and “preferred list for employment” indicate that the teachers appear on this list because of their level of performance and should be favored by the LEA over less effective teachers. Based on the foregoing analysis, the phrases “the preferred list for employment” and “list for reemployment” mean a list of teachers “rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302,” regardless of tenure status, who should be considered for employment by the LEA over other candidates when filling comparable positions within the LEA. The preference given to employees on the “preferred list” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) is not absolute, however, as that subsection preserves a director of schools’ broad discretion in determining how to fill vacancies, and “a principal may refuse to accept the placement or transfer of a teacher by the director of schools to the principal’s school.”

Questions 6 and 7: Is it a statutory requirement that teachers be placed on the preferred list for employment at the time of their dismissal? Are LEAs obligated under the statute to include non-tenured teachers on the preferred list for employment?

Opinions 6 and 7: If certain conditions are met, yes. A teacher has a right to be included on the preferred list for employment only if “it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions or nonlicensed positions in the system because of a decrease in enrollment or for other good reasons” and that teacher is “rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49- 1-302” and “has been dismissed because of abolition of a position.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5- 511(b)(3).

Question 8: Do tenured teachers listed on the preferred list have statutory priority or preferential rights to reemployment over nontenured teachers, including new hires, teachers on transitional licenses or waivers, or individuals employed without a valid teaching license?

Opinion 8: No. Section 49-5-511 does not distinguish between tenured and nontenured teachers.

Question 9: Can tenured teachers be dismissed prior to the conclusion of the academic year as a result of a Reduction in Force?

Opinion 9: Yes. The board is empowered to dismiss teachers—tenured or otherwise—“[w]hen it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions” due to an enrollment decrease or other good reasons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1). The statute does not address when the reduction in force occurs.

Question 10: Is the Director of Schools required to assess the competence, capability, and suitability of a teacher who has been placed on the preferred list for employment?

Opinion 10: No. But Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) preserves the director of schools’ “power to determine the filling of [a] vacancy on the basis of the director of schools’ evaluation of the teacher’s competence, compatibility, and suitability . . . in light of the best interest of the students in the school where the vacancy exists.” In other words, the director of schools has the power to assess competence, capability, and suitability of a teacher but has no requirement to.

Question 11: Is the evaluation of a teacher’s competence, capability, and suitability by the Director of Schools distinct from the performance evaluation conducted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1- 302?

Opinion 11: Yes. The first sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) refers to the § 49-1-302 evaluation and requires that teachers rated in the three highest categories be placed on a list for reemployment. Sentence two states, “Nothing in this subsection (b) shall be construed to deprive the director of schools of the power to determine the filling of such vacancy on the basis of the director of schools' evaluation of the teacher's competence, compatibility, and suitability to properly discharge the duties required for the vacant position considered in the light of the best interest of the students in the school where the vacancy exists.” The second sentence recognizes 4 the director of schools’ ability to exercise independent judgment to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for an open position apart from the § 49-1-302 evaluation.

Question 1: Does the term “elementary school students” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 include students in grades K-5 when those grades are housed within the same building, even if the building also hosts higher grade levels such as in a K-8 school?

Opinion 1: It depends. Although Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 does not define what constitutes an elementary school student for purposes of its substantive requirements, we think a court facing this issue would likely rely on the definitional framework within Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-6-301. Under that statute, “elementary schools” serve “any combination of kindergarten through grade six,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-301(a), whereas “middle schools” are “designed to serve grades five through eight (5-8) only, or any combination of grades five through eight.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-301(b). When applying these definitional concepts to the context of a K-8 school, we think students in grades K-4 would clearly be considered elementary school students, whereas the classification of fifth-grade students would depend on how the local school board classified them. Thus, although fifth-grade students in a K-8 school might be considered elementary school students for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 in certain situations, we do not think that conclusion is always mandated absent further direction from the General Assembly.

Question 2: For purposes of compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021, how should “elementary school” be defined or determined?

Opinion 2: See response to Question 1.

Question 3: With respect to the physical-activity requirements for elementary school students in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021, may a school withhold unstructured recess as punishment or replace it with a disciplinary walking activity?

Opinion 3: No.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Moreno Lee Jackson, who has an extensive history of firearm and drug-related offenses, challenges the procedural reasonableness of his middle-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 212 months’ imprisonment. Because we find that Jackson waived any appellate challenge to his sentence, we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Martinez Obrien Carter, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of selling heroin, a Class B felony; selling fentanyl, a Class C felony; and casual exchange of fentanyl, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years; twelve and one-half years; and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) potential jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous information regarding his custodial status, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its cross-examination of a defense witness, (3) the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of the State’s confidential informant; and (4) the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Based upon the oral arguments and our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court denied Husband’s timely motion to alter or amend a divorce decree involving child custody, child support, and the distribution of military retirement benefits. Several days later, the trial court entered a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the former order, but within thirty days of the latter order. Because we determine that the time for filing an appeal from the order denying Husband’s motion was not affected by the entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

Sumner County attorney Beth Angel Garrison received a censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on April 15. A client hired Garrison to prepare an agreed order for reduction of his child support, to which the other parent had agreed. Garrison prepared the order and sent it to opposing counsel, who requested minor changes, but she failed to take any action for eight months until she was contacted by the client. At that time, she prepared the revised order and sent it to the client. After the client approved, however, Garrison failed to send the agreement to opposing counsel. The court found that Garrison violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4 and 1.16.

More than 20 Tennessee counties are getting an extension on filing their federal taxes, according to an announcement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Individuals, households and businesses in most of Middle Tennessee’s counties now have until May 22 to file their 2025 tax returns and scheduled payments. The extension was granted as part of federal disaster relief for the winter storm that impacted those areas in late January. No action is required to take advantage of the extended deadline. The IRS says that it automatically identifies taxpayers in those areas and “applies filing and payment relief.” View the IRS announcement for the full list of counties.

Tennessee lawyers will gather in June for the 2026 TBA Annual Convention, which will offer compelling CLE programming, networking opportunities and social events. This year's CLE lineup — which will offer 8.5 hours of credit — will focus on technology topics as part of TBA’s first-ever Tech Showcase. Programming kicks off Thursday morning with a session on evaluating technology needs and how AI products can fill the gaps, followed by a look at how technology can enhance trial presentations. Afternoon sessions will focus on conscious lawyering with AI, as well as a joint program with the Tennessee Alliance of Black Lawyers (TABL) on surveillance, safety and the cost of privacy. On Friday, don’t miss the wellness-focused Better Right Now program — back with a tech focus this year — and a presentation on how to use tech tools to master time management. Finally, TBA’s government relations team will present the ever-popular Legislative Update on Thursday afternoon. Stay tuned for more details and speakers coming soon. Learn more about this year’s Convention and register now!

Law Day, nationally recognized on May 1, will be celebrated at events across the state in the coming weeks. Belmont College of Law Dean Alberto Gonzalez will speak at the Nashville Bar Association's event on April 23 and at the Knoxville Bar Association's program on April 29. The Memphis Bar Association will host a barbecue on May 1, and the Chattanooga Bar Association has planned a luncheon for May 6, featuring keynote speaker Jean Becker, former chief of staff to former President George H. W. Bush. Finally, West Tennessee Legal Services (WTLS) and the Jackson-Madison County Bar Association will host their annual Law Day Celebration on May 1 with Joel Ebert and Erik Schelzig, authors of "Welcome to Capitol Hill: Fifty Years of Scandal in Tennessee Politics." The 2026 Law Day theme is “The Rule of Law and the American Dream.” The rule of law — the idea that no person is above the law — is what ensures the rights of the people to live their lives as freely as possible and to pursue their dreams, according to national event planners.