U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts today issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants, marking the third such ruling since a recent Supreme Court decision limited nationwide injunctions. Reuters reports that the judge ruled the executive order unconstitutional and rejected arguments for a narrower injunction, citing the burden it would place on states and the lack of clarity from the administration. The issue is expected to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, but for now, the order remains blocked nationwide.

The Nashville Bar Association (NBA) on Wednesday released the results of a member poll for applicants being considered to fill the 20th Judicial District, Davidson County, Criminal Court Vacancy that was created by the retirement of Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn. Members were given the names of applicants who are being considered for the position as of July 14, through an online survey ballot, and 289 responses were received by the deadline of July 22. All attorney bar members are polled, and the results are reported as raw ballot results with no attempt to extrapolate results. Download the poll results here.

PER CURIAM. At issue is whether Tennessee’s appeal of a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking it from enforcing a ban on intentionally recruiting pregnant minors for the purpose of concealing or obtaining an abortion is moot. It is. The district court recently entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law.

A grand jury in Montgomery County, Ohio, indicted Mark Hartman for three counts of rape that occurred during a late-night sexual encounter. After a bench trial, a state judge convicted him of all three counts. Hartman now petitions for habeas Nos. 23-3309/3365 Hartman v. Yost Page 2 relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his two trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by improperly cross-examining witnesses during the trial. He also alleges his counsel provided ineffective assistance by misstating material facts about bench and jury trials and inducing him to waive his right to a jury. Ohio courts rejected his claims on the merits. Hartman argues that the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington when they did so. Those state-court decisions were not unreasonable. The district court erred by granting Hartman relief on his cross-examination claim. But the court properly denied relief on Hartman’s jury-waiver claim. We REVERSE the district court’s grant of a habeas writ on Hartman’s cross-examination claim, AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief on his jurywaiver claim, and REMAND with instructions to deny Hartman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1

Following a trial, a Weakley County jury found Defendant, Antwon Dejuan Wiley, guilty of aggravated robbery and theft under $1,000, for which the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for theft under $1,000 with the aggravated robbery conviction based upon double jeopardy principles. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences but remand for the merger of his conviction for theft under $1,000 into his aggravated robbery conviction and entry of amended judgments reflecting the merger.

The Petitioner, David Anthony Avery, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his third motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking correction of his sentence. As grounds, the Petitioner asserts his sentence is illegal because attempted murder, a crime which he was convicted of, does not exist in Tennessee. Because the Petitioner’s motion failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner Derrick Darnell Moore and Co-Petitioner Demichael Tyrone Moore1 were jointly tried and convicted of first degree murder, among other offenses, for which they were each sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. Thereafter, they filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief, alleging that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioners raised three shared claims, arguing that their respective trial lawyers (1) failed to call key witnesses to testify; (2) failed to seek suppression of cell phone data; and (3) failed to raise or preserve an objection to hearsay for the later appeal. In addition to these shared claims, Petitioner Derrick Moore presented two individual grounds for relief, contending that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that his lawyer (1) failed to effectively communicate and investigate the case; and (2) failed to fulfill promises made during opening statements. Co-Petitioner Demichael Moore raised one additional individual claim, asserting that his lawyer was ineffective in failing to object to testimony regarding his history of incarceration. Finally, both Petitioners asserted that the cumulative prejudicial effect of these alleged deficiencies entitled them to post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioners appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.

After slipping and falling on accumulated snow and ice at a restaurant, a man filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner based on its finding that the owner owed no duty to protect the man from accumulated snow and ice because the incident occurred during an ongoing winter storm. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Robert A. Martin (“Father”) and Donna Saas (“Daughter”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”), seeking the removal of Robert E. Martin (“Son”) as trustee of the Martin Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”) and making claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of assets against Son and his wife, Karen Martin (“Son’s Wife”) (collectively, with Son, “Defendants”). The Trial Court struck Defendants’ defenses and denials in their answer given their failure to provide an accounting of the Trust’s assets despite the Trial Court’s orders to do so. After a hearing on damages, the Trial Court awarded Daughter half of the asset that was supposed to have been put in the Trust, half of the funds that Son had converted from Father’s accounts, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and lost wages. Defendants appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert E. McGuire on July 18 announced that the U.S. has reached an agreement with Knights Inn Nashville to resolve allegations the hotel violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The hotel is alleged to have refused to allow a family with a service animal to stay because it was against hotel policy. As part of the settlement, the hotel has agreed to post a large sign in a conspicuous area accessible by the public that reads “Service Animals Welcome.” The owner of the hotel also will establish and implement a written policy specifically addressing the provision of services to individuals with disabilities who require a service animal for all hotels that he owns, and will provide ADA training to all hotel staff who have contact with guests. Read more.