The parties’ dispute centers upon whether a tenant is required to pay rent for a particular ten-month period. The landlord asserts that it delayed but did not waive payment. The tenant counters that the landlord’s agent waived rent and that the tenant forbore terminating the lease based on the agent’s representations. The trial court, after setting aside a default judgment, concluded that the landlord’s agent did not have the authority to waive rent but had the authority to modify the lease to reduce rent for three of the ten months. The tenant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its determination as to the agent’s authority, the issue of estoppel, and the issue of waiver. The landlord asserts that the trial court erred in setting aside the default judgment and in reducing the rent for the three-month period. After a review of the record, we affirm the setting aside of the default judgment but reverse the trial court’s ruling on the agent’s authority and remand for further proceedings.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, a government contractor, brought suit against Defendants, a township and a consulting company, claiming racial discrimination after the consulting company allegedly made false and inaccurate statements about Plaintiff, leading Defendant township to award a government contract to a rival firm. The suit alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution, federal statutes, and Michigan law. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under either 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to allege the racial composition of its ownership. Further, the district court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert its constitutional claims, and that Defendant consulting company was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part the district court’s order dismissing the case and REMAND the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule governing the Title X grant program, which makes grants to assist in the establishment and operation of family planning projects. Among other things, the Rule interpreted § 1008 of Title X, which bars funds appropriated under the Title X grant program from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” A group of states sued, seeking to block two provisions of the 2021 Rule. First, the States challenge the 2021 Rule’s elimination of a prior HHS rule that required grantees to maintain strict physical and financial separation between their Title X programs and any abortion-related services they might provide. Second, they challenge the Rule’s requirement that Title X projects provide referrals for abortion services when requested by the patient.

The Supreme Court has already had occasion to interpret § 1008, the statutory provision at the heart of this case. In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that § 1008 is ambiguous as to program integrity and referrals for abortion and that Chevron deference applies. 500 U.S. 173, 184 (1991). Therefore, we defer to the agency’s interpretation of § 1008 if the interpretation is permissible. Id. While the doctrinal landscape undergirding Rust has shifted significantly since it was decided, Rust, and its application of Chevron, remain binding on this court. Applying Rust, we cannot say that the 2021 Rule’s referral requirement is an impermissible interpretation of § 1008. However, we hold that the 2021 Rule’s program-integrity requirements do not represent a permissible interpretation of § 1008. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in part and REVERSE in part.

Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to two minor children. The trial court found as grounds for termination: (1) abandonment by failure to support, (2) abandonment by failure to visit, and (3) a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. We affirm as to the finding of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit. Because the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient findings of fact, we vacate the trial court’s findings that the father failed to manifest a willingness and ability to parent. We also reverse the trial court’s use of the outdated best interest factors and vacate the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

This action involves various requests directed to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) for the release of records, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”), related to a school shooting that occurred at a private school in Nashville. Before making a determination concerning release of the records, the trial court allowed certain interested parties to intervene in the action pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.02. The parties requesting the records have appealed that ruling pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.05.1 Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee disputes the trial court’s denial of his request for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses and payment of temporary disability benefits. The employee reported an injury to his back and abdomen while stacking generators at work, and the employer provided a panel of physicians and medical treatment. Meanwhile, the employee also received unauthorized treatment with two other providers and underwent hernia surgery without advising the employer. Subsequently, he sought workers’ compensation benefits, including past medical expenses and temporary disability benefits. During discovery, the employee did not provide the names of his unauthorized providers in his written interrogatory responses or produce medical records in response to requests for production of documents. At an expedited hearing, the employer objected to the introduction of any medical records or medical bills. The court sustained the objection and determined the employee had not presented sufficient evidence that he was likely to prevail at trial in proving his entitlement to past medical expenses or temporary disability benefits. However, the trial court found the employee was entitled to ongoing authorized medical treatment for injuries causally related to the reported work accident. The employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the court’s decision, find the employee’s appeal to be frivolous, and remand the case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today denied a petition from Williamson County lawyer Connie Lynn Reguli for “immediate relief of reversal” of a Nov. 20 order temporarily suspending her law license. The court did grant Reguli’s request for an evidentiary hearing and stated that she can present “applied constitutional challenges” to the order at that time.

The American Bar Association (ABA) announced it has withdrawn two recent statements on the conflict in Israel and Gaza following a backlash from hundreds of lawyers, the ABA Journal reports. The two statements on the Israel-Hamas war made by ABA President Mary Smith on Oct. 9 and Oct. 17 have been replaced with a one-sentence explanation saying they have been withdrawn. Critics said Smith’s statements about “all parties” stopping hostilities and upholding international law were “deeply flawed” because they wrongly suggested Israel was guilty of war crimes and that the conduct of the two governments was equivalent. An ABA spokesperson told Law.com and the ABA Journal that the statements were removed “because they were no longer timely.”

Vanderbilt University Law School will host a reception to introduce its Vanderbilt AI Law Lab (VAILL) on Dec. 14 at 3 p.m. CST at the school, 131 21st Ave S, Nashville 37203. The lab will explore how artificial intelligence intersects with the delivery of legal services and access to justice. VAILL Directors Cat Moon and Mark Williams, along with professors Cara Suvall and Dr. Jules White, will be in attendance to discuss how VAILL will experiment with AI to enhance access to justice and improve legal service delivery. Read the full press release.

The second annual Raising the Bar program took place today at Baker Donelson's Nashville office. Produced by the TBA Women in the Profession Committee, programming centered on advocating for one’s own and others’ career growth, and how to effectively solicit raises and project assignments, receive credit for work done, and make partner. Sessions also explored the barriers impacting diverse women in the legal industry and best practices for overcoming those challenges, and wrapped up with a discussion of the financial aspects of preparing for retirement and maintaining work-life balance while transitioning to retirement. Thanks to TBA's women past presidents and Sherrard Roe Voight & Harbison for sponsoring the lunch and networking reception, and to sponsors Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP and McMurray Law Office PLLC for their support. See photos from the event.