This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Lauderdale County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Erica H. (“Mother”) to her minor twin sons, Jordyn and Jadyn H. (“the Children,” collectively). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on a number of grounds. Mother appeals. We find, by clear and convincing evidence, that five grounds for termination were proven against Mother and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. However, we vacate certain of the grounds found by the Juvenile Court. We therefore affirm the Juvenile Court’s judgment, as modified, terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

A mother seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motion for recusal. In her motion, the mother argued that recusal was warranted because the trial judge’s husband, an elected official, expressed a public opinion on the subject matter of the case. In this appeal, she again argues that the opinion of the judge’s husband justified recusal. But she also argues that the order denying her motion for recusal reflected a bias on the judge’s part. We agree that the opinion of the judge’s husband on a political matter did not warrant recusal. And, while the order denying the recusal request did make findings about the motive behind the request that were unsupported by the record, the erroneous findings alone are insufficient to raise a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality. So we affirm.

COLE, Circuit Judge. The Ohio National Guard and its Adjutant General (collectively, the “Guard”) petition this court to review a Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) decision and order arising out of a collective-bargaining dispute between the Guard and the union that represents its technicians, the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3970, AFL-CIO (the “Union”). The Guard seeks reversal of the decision and order, arguing that the FLRA does not have jurisdiction under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the “Statute”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7135, to adjudicate federal labor-relations questions between the Guard and the technicians’ Union. The Guard additionally argues that it is unconstitutional for the FLRA to enforce the Statute by issuing orders to state national guards and their adjutants general, and that the Guard cannot legally comply with the FLRA’s order. We deny the Guard’s petition.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After police arrested Baxter Jones during a protest in Detroit, he sued the City on several grounds, including a claim that the police officers failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for him when they took him to the police station. Officers transported Jones, who uses a wheelchair, in a cargo van. That was unsafe and injured him, he alleged in the complaint. The district court dismissed his claim that the City was vicariously liable for the officers’ failure to accommodate him. Because vicarious liability is not available for claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we affirm.

The petitioner, Jerry Lewis Tuttle, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Petitioner, Rohman M. Harper, appeals from the Cheatham County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated sexual battery conviction and his eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post- conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a divorce action, in which the wife’s conservator alleged that the husband had been dissipating marital assets and had withdrawn money from joint accounts. As a result, the trial court ordered the husband to deposit the withdrawn funds with the court’s clerk and master. The wife passed away before the trial court could adjudicate the divorce action. The husband filed a motion requesting that the court return the funds to him because the divorce action had abated upon the wife’s death. The trial court dismissed the suit but denied the husband’s motion and ordered the clerk and master to continue holding the funds until they could be transferred to the probate court upon the filing of a petition to probate the wife’s estate. The husband has appealed. Having determined that the trial court erred by exercising subject matter jurisdiction over the disposition of the funds after the divorce action had abated, we reverse the trial court’s decision to withhold the funds from the husband and retain them with the clerk and master.

This case concerns the restoration of voting rights of a Tennessee citizen who was convicted of a felony in Virginia and subsequently granted clemency by the Governor of Virginia. Because the voting applicant did not provide evidence that he paid outstanding court costs, restitution, and/or child support as is required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29- 202, the election commission denied his application to vote. The voting applicant appealed the election commission’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court upheld the election commission’s decision as valid. We agree with the trial court and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy. Throughout, American employees have been trying to survive financially and hoping to find a way to return to their jobs. Despite access to vaccines and better testing, however, the virus rages on, mutating into different variants, and posing new risks. Recognizing that the “old normal” is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there. In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace. On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS or the standard) to protect the health of employees by mitigating spread of this historically unprecedented virus in the workplace. The ETS requires that employees be vaccinated or wear a protective face covering and take weekly tests but allows employers to choose the policy implementing those requirements that is best suited to their workplace. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS pending judicial review, and it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3), petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit for the following reasons.

Week of December 13, 2021 - December 17, 2021