The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals last week made public its landmark ruling that Tennesseans have the right to confront accusers in court and not by video, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. “While we concede that two-way videoconferencing more closely approximates face-to-face confrontation, it is in no way constitutionally equivalent to the face-to-face confrontation envisioned by the Sixth Amendment,” Appellate Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer wrote. While the opinion doesn’t forbid the use of video technology outright, it does advise judges to only allow it as a last recourse “to further an important public interest.” It’s not immediately clear how the first-of-its-kind ruling will impact the Tennessee Supreme Court’s pandemic-related decision to authorize video technology as a substitute for in-person proceedings or whether the Tennessee Attorney General’s office will ask the high court to review the decision.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on the expansion of absentee voting, the Tennessean reports. The high court heard arguments on whether concerns over the spread of the COVID-19 virus is a valid excuse to receive an absentee ballot. A lower court ruled last month that it was, but the state has appealed that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. Janet Kleinfelter, the attorney for the state, was questioned by all five justices, with Justice Sharon Lee reportedly becoming frustrated when asking Kleinfelter about the state’s position on voters with underlying health risks. Kleinfelter told the court that voters with health issues, or those living with them, would be able to request an absentee ballot. That position contradicts previous statements from Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who was quoted in mid-May as saying, “fear of getting ill does not fall under the definition of ill.” Kleinfelter argued that the lower court erred in its ruling, which she said was open ended with "no limitation" on how long the state is mandated to apply the lower court's interpretation of the statute. It’s unclear when the justices will rule on the issue, with Chief Justice Jeff Bivins calling the decision an “incredibly important case for all Tennesseans.” You can watch the full recording of oral arguments on the TNCourts YouTube page. 

Join the Corporate Counsel Section for Knowledge Nibbles — Bring on the Booze: An In-House Counsel's Guide to Alcohol Permitting in Tennessee on Aug. 11 from 10 a.m. until noon CDT. This live virtual event will feature Rachel Lawson of Schaffer Law Firm PLLC who will discuss obtaining and maintaining an alcohol permit in the state of Tennessee. The second hour will end with participants engaging in a Q&A with Lawson and other attendees. Don't miss your chance to be part of this conversation by registering now. 

The U.S. House seems ready to grant the U.S. Marshals Service request for a $4.8 million bump in funding for judicial protection operations and intelligence initiatives, Law.com reports. The funding, the first directly requested increase in appropriations for judicial protections in five years, will be used for adding 19 new positions, including 13 agents. A House report accompanying an appropriations bill for the U.S. Justice Department shows a $19.2 million increase from the amount dedicated overall to the topic in the previous fiscal year, which the Appropriations Committee noted would provide an increase for the Marshals Service. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear one part of Graceland’s appeal of a December 2019 ruling upholding the dismissal of its case against the City of Memphis, the Daily Memphian reports. Graceland is arguing that it should be allowed to seek public financing for a 6,200-seat arena in Whitehaven. Plans were announced for that arena in 2017, with the first phase including a tax increment financing incentive involving the use of property taxes and approved by the Economic Development Growth Engine board. But, the part of the Memphis Grizzlies organization that operates the FedEx Forum objected to that financing, arguing it violated a noncompete clause they have with Memphis and Shelby County. Specifically, that clause forbids local government from providing economic or tax incentives to any new indoor arena with seating capacity of more than 5,000 or fewer than 50,000. Graceland has since filed two lawsuits that were both dismissed for lack of standing. The appeals court upheld the dismissal and that dismissal is what will go before the Supreme Court. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.

Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands will host a Facebook Live event tomorrow to answer questions on the impact of COVID-19 school closures on children in special education programs. LAS attorneys Shelby Dodson and Rachel Moses will field those questions tomorrow at 11 a.m. CDT. Catch the livestream on the LAS Facebook page here.  

The Davidson County Election Commission on Monday urged voters to immediately return their mail ballots, which must be received by close of polls on Election Day, the Associated Press reports. According to officials, they have mailed almost 30,000 absentee ballots for the Aug. 6 primary and only half have been completed and returned. Voters have until Thursday to request an absentee ballot, though officials have urged quicker action. They also advise allowing seven days for return. Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle ordered the state to expand absentee voting in early June and the state’s appeal of that order heads to the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday. Voters can track absentee ballots here.

As part of the Summer CLE Blast, the TBA will rebroadcast the two-part 2019 Ethics Roadshow program this Thursday, starting at 10 a.m. CDT. Lewis Thomason attorney Brian Faughnan will offer a crash course on important changes to ethics rules, how those changes will potentially impact the legal landscape and a discussion of ethics rules that remain important to know and comply with. Registration is now open for Part One and Part Two of the program, each worth 1.5 dual credits each.

Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery has reached a settlement agreement with Medicaid Done Right (MDR) after it was alleged the company had misrepresented itself as authorized by or affiliated with the government to assist with TennCare/Medicaid applications. MDR contracts with nursing homes to provide Medicaid application assistance to patients and their families and had such agreements with at least two companies that operate several nursing homes in Tennessee. MDR’s webpage had featured text and illustrations that gave the impression that it was part of TennCare and, in several instances, nursing home patients believed they were required to use MDR’s services and that it was part of TennCare. MDR also failed to disclose that state Area Agencies on Aging and Disability (AAADs) can often perform TennCare/Medicaid application assistance for free. According to the terms of the settlement, MDR must take down the misleading text and illustrations from its webpage, inform Tennessee consumers that AAADs can offer assistance and provide restitution to Tennessee consumers with assets over the Medicaid income threshold who used MDR or attorneys suggested by MDR and who requested repayment when contacted by the AG’s office. Read the full settlement agreement on the AG’s website.

Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit last week authored an opinion in which he shared pointed criticism of a Tennessee attorney for going too far in his allegations against his opponent in an antitrust suit, Law.com reports. Thapar, writing for an unanimous panel, said the language in lawyer Francis Santore Jr.’s amended complaint against Ballad Health, the Medical Education Assistance Corp. (MEAC) and others “added only insults, not an injury” to his case. That language included comparing the “incestuous relationship” between Ballad and MEAC to Sodom and Gomorrah and suggesting that the Ballad Board had been “sickened” and required “permanent quarantine.” The 6th Circuit ultimately agreed with the trial judge who had dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Thapar wrote that, while the court did not want to criticize the “passionate and forceful advocacy” of a client that Santore had shown at points in the trial, they did want to remind him that “as an officer of the court, he is expected to treat other parties in the case (as well as their counsel) with courtesy and professionalism.”