The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling today affirmed a lower court's decision that an Alabama electoral map diluted the voting power of Black residents in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Reuters reports. The map was approved in 2021 by the Republican-controlled state legislature and featured one majority-Black district and six majority-white districts. In Thursday’s ruling, two consolidated cases before the Supreme Court involved challenges brought by Black voters and advocacy groups accusing Alabama of violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge federal court panel sided with the challengers in 2022, blocking the map as a "substantially likely" violation of Section 2 and ordering an additional district where Black voters make up "a voting-age majority or something quite close to it." Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that allowed the wife of Gorgi Talevski, a nursing home resident diagnosed with dementia, to sue Health and Hospital Corp of Marion County over claims it violated her husband’s civil rights, reported Reuters. The ruling preserved the ability of people to sue for civil rights violations under Section 1983, a law enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to protect the rights of Black Americans by granting people the power to sue in federal court when state officials violate their constitutional or statutory rights. In a 2019 lawsuit, Gorgi’s wife, Ivanka Talevski, said her husband was subjected to harmful psychotropic drugs and unlawfully transferred to an all-male facility. He died in 2021, while the litigation was pending.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is investigating Nashville-based AllianceBernstein and other asset managers related to their climate change work, Reuters reports. The probe is seeking information about environmental, social and governance investing policies at the companies as well as partnerships with climate coalitions like Climate Action 100+ and Net Zero Asset Managers. Other companies involved are Invesco Ltd. and the Jennison Associates arm of Prudential Financial. According to the news source, the attorney general’s office is looking for “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” under the state’s 1977 consumer protection law. Skrmetti’s office told Reuters that it is “highly concerned with corporate collusion.” The Nashville Post has more on the story.

The state Supreme Court today permanently disbarred Virginia lawyer Robert R. Rexrode from the practice of law in Tennessee. The court took the action after the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility found that Rexrode engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia, knowingly engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, and failed to cooperate in the investigation of a disciplinary complaint. His actions were determined to violate West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (b)(2), 8.1 and 8.4(c) and (d).

Shelby County will open a new Youth Justice and Education Center within the next month, the Daily Memphian reports. The 85,626-square-foot facility located at 3420 Old Getwell Rd. in Oakhaven will feature 146 beds, nine classrooms, an indoor basketball court, a new dental office and a courtroom. The facility sits on more than 10 acres of land and also will feature an outdoor recreation area for basketball, volleyball, soccer, yoga, gardening and more. The county purchased the building from CoreCivic in 2020 and spent $31.5 million renovating it. The new center will replace a downtown facility, which was built in 1935.

Gov. Bill Lee said Monday that he will not consult with Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti about a recent court decision striking down the state’s drag law, Tennessee Lookout reports. At an event promoting his transportation modernization plan, Lee said the next move “falls into the realm of the judicial branch and the attorney general will determine next steps from there.” He went on to say, “That bill was created to protect children in this state. I’ll continue to do that whenever we can. But the attorney general will make the decision about that particular piece of legislation.” Some confusion continues to exist as to whether the decision affects just Shelby County or is in force more broadly. Skrmetti told the Commercial Appeal that the law remains in effect in Tennessee’s other counties. Others contend the ruling applies to all counties in the Western District of the state, while others suggest it applies to the entire state.

Defendant, Garen Wright, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously ordered probationary sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by not considering alternatives to placing Defendant in custody for the full term. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, William Rimmel, III, was indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of false imprisonment, one count of vandalism over $2,500, and one count of burglary of an automobile. The charge of false imprisonment was dismissed prior to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, attempted reckless endangerment, vandalism under $1,000, and attempted burglary of an automobile. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of two years on probation following service of 11 months and 29 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and in ordering consecutive sentencing, that his convictions should be vacated due to the State’s failure to preserve evidence, and that the trial court gave confusing jury instructions. Based on the record, the briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a judgment in Count 4 and amended judgment in Count 3, reflecting that those counts were dismissed, and for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 5 and 6.

This case involves a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the plaintiff, then a member of the Clarksville City Council, was entitled to a declaration of rights concerning alleged communications between the Clarksville City Attorney and the local District Attorney General potentially pertaining to plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiff was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion because there was no justiciable controversy. Having reviewed the record, we affirm.

This case involves an intrafamily dispute over a home and the alleged indebtedness thereon. The trial court found that the son committed promissory fraud with regard to the conveyance of the home and awarded the mother $180,000.00 in damages as the value of the home at the time of the conveyance. The trial court further dismissed a claim against the daughter related to a loan on the property. Both the son and the mother appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.