U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared divided over Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy deal today, questioning whether it can immunize the Sackler family from civil lawsuits for their role in the opioid crisis, The Hill reports. The Biden administration and a small group of creditors have raised objections to the liability releases. During the session, several justices reportedly raised concerns that the administration’s position would unravel the settlement and deprive victims of a timely resolution to the case. Others appeared sympathetic to the government’s position, saying the protection would raise due process concerns. The bankruptcy deal is on hold under an emergency ruling from the court. A decision is expected in June.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases this week at the University of Tennessee at Martin as part of its SCALES program. The event on Wednesday will feature arguments in Robert L. Trentham v. Mid-America Apartments, LP et al. and Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State of Tennessee. Sessions will be livestreamed starting at 9 a.m. CST on the court’s YouTube page. SCALES, which stands for Supreme Court Advancing Legal Education for Students, educates high school students about the Tennessee legal system and the functions of the judicial branch.

The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct has issued a public reprimand to Knoxville Municipal Judge John R. Rosson. The letter from the board states that Rosson breached the Code of Judicial Conduct when he held a campaign event in his courtroom on Oct. 11, 2023. The board also said that Rosson took election-related questions from the press during the event, and asked those who would see the press conference to vote for him. The board found that Rosson violated Rules of Judicial Conduct 1.2, 1.3 and 3.1(E). Rosson, who has no history of disciplinary issues, accepted the reprimand and took full responsibility for his actions according to the board.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. James Wilder II was walking along a road on a rainy night. When a police car approached, an officer noticed a gun at Wilder’s hip. Wilder ran, clutching his waist. The officer observed Wilder drop the gun and pick it up before running into a house. A search of the home yielded a gun matching the one the officer had observed, leading to Wilder’s arrest. While in jail, Wilder called a friend and directed her to pay the residents of the home to say (falsely) that they owned the gun. A jury ultimately found Wilder guilty of both possession of a firearm as a felon and attempted witness tampering.

Wilder challenges the admission of trial testimony regarding the officer’s training and experience. He also contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempt conviction. Finding no prejudicial error in the district court proceedings, we affirm.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Jennings Maynard worked in the coal-mining industry for over forty-three years and developed severe respiratory issues. Maynard filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, but he died while his claim was still pending. Maynard’s widow, Elizabeth Maynard, filed a claim for survivor’s benefits, and the Administrative Law Judge awarded benefits to Elizabeth Maynard, on both Maynard’s behalf and as his surviving spouse. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. Island Creek Coal Company now petitions this court to review the award. For the following reasons, we DENY the petition for review.

PER CURIAM. Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department, holding that Ames lacked evidence of “background circumstances” necessary to establishing her prima-facie case for her claim based on sexual orientation, and that Ames lacked evidence of pretext for purposes of her sex-discrimination claim. We affirm.

The mother of a 17-year-old girl says her daughter was "body slammed" by two male counselors from Youth Villages after she refused to strip in front of them during an appointment at the Shelby County Health Department and later was beaten by at least 12 counselors at the facility. Youth Villages strongly denies the accusations, and in the case of the first incident, says Alegend Jones was accompanied by two women to the department. According to the Commercial Appeal, Jones went to the facility after her mother asked the Department of Children's Services (DCS) to take over as guardian to help with mental health struggles. Her death was described by the center as an "incident" and "medical emergency." The mother has retained civil rights attorney Ben Crump. DCS says it also is investigating the death.

A Knox County jury found the Defendant, Dominique Michael Byrd, guilty of theft of property and vandalism, and the trial court sentenced him to serve an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant argues only that the evidence is legally insufficient to show that he is the person who committed the crimes. On our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A mother and stepfather sued to terminate a father’s parental rights based on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support as well as the best interest of the children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that both grounds for termination existed and that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate the father’s parental rights. The father appealed. We affirm.

A federally chartered credit union agreed to purchase substantially all assets of a Tennessee-chartered bank. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions objected. He contended that the transaction was prohibited by the Tennessee Banking Act because the credit union was not a bank holding company. So he sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the transaction. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded the sale of substantially all of the assets of a bank was not prohibited by the Act. We affirm.