In a 6-3 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the statutory basis for most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which were imposed by executive orders. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Justices Elena Kagan, Kentanji Brown Jackson and Sonya Sotomayor to find that the president exceeded the authority granted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. SCOTUSblog reports that the majority held that the act authorizes presidents to regulate or block imports during foreign-related national emergencies, but does not clearly grant the power to impose tariffs. In dissent, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued that tariffs are a traditional tool for regulating imports and that the statute’s broad language reflects Congress’s intent to grant presidents significant flexibility during emergencies. Kavanaugh also suggested the ruling could trigger substantial refund claims from importers who paid the tariffs. Notably, the court did not address how the federal government should handle potential refunds of the more than $200 billion collected under the tariffs. The Hill also reports on the ruling. The president quickly responded to the ruling, saying he would use other statutory authorities to maintain the tariffs, according to Politico.

The American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates adopted almost 30 policy matters on a wide variety of issues when it met during the 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting in San Antonio earlier this month. The resolutions address judicial independence and safety, executive-branch integrity, military involvement in domestic matters, immigration enforcement, Medicaid protections, and improvements to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Key measures included opposing violence against the judiciary, calling for safeguarding the independence of the U.S. Department of Justice, limiting domestic use of military and National Guard forces, and reinforcing due-process protections in Medicaid administration. Additional resolutions supported bar-exam reforms, protections against misuse of generative AI, and efforts to foster open and civil debate within the legal profession. Read more in a press release.

Next week, the TBA will host two webcast replays of sessions from its Conference on AI & the Law. “AI Use in Legal Practice,” set for noon CST on Feb. 23, will feature Oliver Roberts of Holtzman Vogel in Nashville offering a practical look at how lawyers and judges are using artificial intelligence tools for research, drafting, timekeeping and workflow automation. A second program, “The State of the State of AI,” on Feb. 24 at noon CST will be led by A.J. Bahou of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings in Nashville. It will provide an overview of AI developments in the legal industry, including state and federal legislation, AI governance and recent litigation involving the technology.

As part of its ongoing effort to gather feedback from Tennessee attorneys on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Sept. 16 order seeking public comment on seven areas of potential regulatory changes to the legal profession, the TBA’s Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force is hosting a series of virtual town halls. Monday's event will start at noon CDT and focus on ABA Accreditation; Thursday's session will also begin at noon CST and cover Interstate Mobility and Reciprocity. There is no cost to attend but registration is required to receive the meeting link. Attorneys also are encouraged to review the TBA’s Legal Access & Regulatory Reform resource page before attending.

Judge Zachary R. Walden will serve as the TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) president in 2028-2029. His election to the post was uncontested. After taking office as vice president at this summer's TBA Convention, Walden will become president-elect in June 2027 and president in June 2028. He has served as YLD secretary; YLD East Tennessee governor; Mock Trial chair, vice chair and long-range planning chair; Rural Judicial Fellowship co-chair; and member of the TBALL class of 2025. He earned his law degree from the University of Alabama School of Law and presides over the 8th Judicial District Criminal Court, Recovery Court and Veterans Treatment Court. Walden has been recognized with the American Bar Association’s On the Rise Award, Knoxville News Sentinel’s 40 Under 40 and the University of Alabama School of Law’s Rising Young Lawyer Award.

A number of immigration bills introduced at the beginning of the session have started to move through the legislative process. According to the Nashville Post, members of the State & Local Government Committee House Departments and Agencies Subcommittee passed three bills earlier this week. Among those was HB1710, which would require local governments to verify the citizenship status of applicants for public benefits, and HB1711, which would require local governments and law enforcement agencies to report on persons not lawfully present in the United States and require state agencies to report annual costs incurred in providing certain services to persons not lawfully present in the United States. The third bill, HB2219, would require local governments to comply with court orders regarding unlawful sanctuary policies. Members of the House Transportation Subcommittee also passed two bills — HB1706 and HB1708 — related to immigrants’ ability to obtain driver's licenses.

The Tennessee House of Representatives has passed legislation that aims to “clarify” that private citizens and organizations may refuse to recognize same-sex marriages without facing punishment. According to WBIR, HB1473, sponsored by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, passed on a vote of 68-24. A companion bill, SB1746, has been introduced by Sen. Janice Bowling, R-Tullahoma. Bill sponsors say it is designed to clarify the impact of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on public versus private entities. Opponents say the bill could lead to businesses refusing to serve gay and lesbian couples and be applied to other situations, including discrimination against bi-racial couples, immigrants and others. WSMV has more on the legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will use new software to assist in identifying whether a case poses a potential conflict of interest for the justices, who decide for themselves whether to step aside from participation in cases. According to Reuters, the software will compare information about lawyers and parties to a dispute to certain information provided by the offices of each of the nine justices. These "automated recusal checks" will complement existing procedures carried out by the justices for reviewing potential conflicts, the court said. In an effort to identify conflicts for justices who own individual stock, the court also amended Rule 14 of its rules to require parties to include stock ticker symbols in their briefs starting next month.

The Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Knox County lawyer Loring Edwin Justice from the practice of law for four years on Feb. 19. The court imposed the discipline after finding that Justice and his firm entered into a fee agreement without client authorization, charged excessive and unreasonable fees that were unsupported by billing records, abused the fiduciary relationship with the client, failed to reasonably communicate with or diligently represent a client, failed to protect his client’s interests after withdrawal or termination, and engaged in misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. On Dec. 3, 2025, Justice entered into a conditional guilty plea that he violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.16 and 8.4(c).

The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Attorney General’s Office to take up a case involving a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban, meaning the case is now likely to go to trial, the Nashville Banner reports. The plaintiffs in the initial lawsuit included several women who suffered medical complications during their pregnancies but were unable to receive medical care and doctors who were unable to give care under the law. The plaintiffs initially sued the state in September 2023. In October 2024, a three-judge panel ruled the state could not discipline doctors for giving medically necessary abortions. In October 2025, a three-judge panel declined to dismiss the suit. A two-week non-jury trial is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on April 27.