Make plans now to attend the TBA’s 2023 Administrative Law Forum Dec. 8 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. CST at Burr & Forman, 222 Second Ave. Ste. 2000, Nashville 37201. The program is a staple for Tennessee administrative lawyers. Topics for this year's forum include updates on legislative and case law, administrative rules and ethics. Thanks to Jonathan Fly, administrative judge for the Tennessee Department of Human Services, for producing this program. Find out more and register.

The 23rd Annual Health Law Primer offers an introductory learning path for newer practitioners and attorneys entering the practice area. Sessions provide the intangibles for health care lawyers, including an introduction to the U.S. health care system; introduction to fraud and abuse; introduction to physician/health care provider licensure; physician/health care provider employment and contracting; and more. Lunch is included with the program, with a networking reception to follow. Learn more and register using this link.

Next week’s 35th Annual TBA Health Law Forum will feature a session dedicated to antitrust enforcement updates. Join senior special counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Adam Cella, along with antitrust experts Ashley Fischer of McDermott Will & Emery and Derek Kelley of K&L Gates, who will discuss recent actions. Topics covered include changes to FTC/DOJ merger and collaboration policies; proposed changes to HSR filings, proposed new merger guidelines; health care guidance repealed by FTC and DOJ merger enforcement updates; and private equity involvement in health care and the related antitrust risks.

The forum is a two-day, in-person event designed to foster collegiality in the Tennessee health law bar and provide an opportunity for lawyers to fulfill annual CLE requirements. Other timely topics featured at this year’s program include AI, telehealth, the False Claims Act, Mifepristone and more. TBA Health Law Section members are also invited to attend a free plated lunch to vote on and welcome new officers for the 2023-2024 bar year.

REGISTER NOW

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked Murfreesboro city officials from enforcing an ordinance passed last summer designed to ban drag performances from taking place in public areas, reports WKRN. The order, issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr., bars the city from enforcing the rule during the BoroPride festival scheduled for Saturday. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee against the city of Murfreesboro on behalf of the Tennessee Equality Project. The lawsuit alleged the Murfreesboro mayor and city manager “engaged in a year-long anti-LGBTQ+ campaign” by passing an ordinance last summer that restricted “indecent behavior” using language the suit labeled says is “staggeringly vague and overbroad.” Read the judge’s order and the ACLU press release.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order Wednesday soliciting comments on a proposed change to Rule 9, section 16, which prescribes the procedure for complaints against members of the Board of Professional Responsibility, district committee members and disciplinary counsel. If adopted, these proposed amendments would replace Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 section 16 in its entirety. The deadline for submitting written comments is Dec. 12.

Question: Does 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 369 (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-2-101 to 306) prohibit foreign ownership of Tennessee real property, and if so, what is the scope of the prohibition?

Opinion: Public Chapter 369 (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-2-101 to 306) is not a blanket prohibition of foreign ownership of Tennessee real property. It does, however, prohibit the purchase or other acquisition of Tennessee real property by “sanctioned foreign businesses,” “sanctioned foreign governments,” and “sanctioned nonresident aliens”—including any of their agents, trustees, and fiduciaries—as those terms are defined in the statute.

Question 1: When an elected municipal court clerk serves a municipal court that exercises concurrent jurisdiction with a general sessions court, does Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-105(a) or any other law authorize that clerk to set bail for a defendant who has been arrested or held to answer for any bailable offense? Specifically, is such a municipal court clerk the equivalent of a “clerk of any circuit or criminal court” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-105(a)?

Opinion 1: No. Neither Tenn Code Ann. § 40-11-105(a) nor any other general law authorizes an elected municipal court clerk to set bail, regardless of any concurrent jurisdiction that the municipal court may exercise with a general sessions court.

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” are there any statutory limitations on the elected municipal court clerk’s authority to set bail for a defendant who has been arrested or held to answer for any bailable offense?

Opinion 2: In light of Opinion 1, this question is moot.

Question 3: If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” does the municipal court judge have the authority under state law to limit or revoke the authority of the elected municipal court clerk to set bail? If the municipal court judge does not have such authority under state law, can a city charter give the municipal court judge such authority?

Opinion 3: In light of Opinion 1, this question is moot. 

Question 4: If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” is there an authoritative governing body that can take corrective action against an elected municipal court clerk when the clerk violates his or her authority relative to setting bail amounts, and if so, which authoritative governing body can take such action?

Opinion 4: In light of Opinion 1, this question is moot.

On Oct. 25, from noon-1 p.m. CDT, Nashville YWCA will host the next installment in its Stand Against Injustice series. The webinar — "Are Domestic Violence Abusers Guaranteed Guns?" — will cover the historical context and possible ramifications of an upcoming case. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi. A decision earlier this year by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individuals subject to orders of protection must be allowed to keep their guns. The decision overturned a federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by individuals determined to pose a credible threat to the safety of an intimate partner or child. National domestic violence organizations, including YWCA USA, have filed amicus briefs explaining why that decision endangers the lives of women.

Question 1: Is a court clerk authorized to require a deposit as a condition of bidding at a delinquent tax sale?

Opinion 1: No. As a public officer a court clerk has and can exercise only the authority that is expressly conferred on the clerk by statute or necessarily implied from the powers granted by statute. But no Tennessee statute expressly—or by necessary implication—authorizes a court clerk to require a deposit as a condition to bidding at a delinquent tax sale.

Question 2: If a court clerk is authorized to require a deposit as a condition of bidding at a delinquent tax sale, is there a limitation on the amount the court clerk is authorized to require?

Opinion 2: In light of Opinion 1 this question is moot.

Question: Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-50-803, which authorizes “each private K-12 school” to establish a handgun-carry policy, allow such a school to adopt a policy that permits its faculty members to “conceal carry” if the school operates a preschool on the school’s campus?

Opinion: Yes. A private K-12 school that operates a preschool on the school’s campus may adopt a handgun-carry policy that permits its faculty members to “conceal carry,” assuming that the policy is adopted in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-50-803.