Yoga, Mindfulness and Meditation for Legal Professionals will be held on April 18 from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. CDT and offer attorneys evidence-based meditation and yoga techniques to reduce stress and improve professional performance. Designed specifically for legal professionals, the program will provide practical strategies to enhance focus, maintain composure in high-pressure situations, and cultivate a sustainable work-life balance. No prior experience in yoga or meditation is necessary. For more information and to register, visit TBA’s website.

Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy entered a new, possibly final phase this week when the bankrupt drugmaker filed a $7.4 billion plan to resolve thousands of lawsuits that alleged its OxyContin pain medication caused a widespread opioid addiction crisis. Reuters also reports on legal fees earned in the case. According to the news source, Purdue's lawyers at Davis Polk have received or requested more than a quarter of a billion dollars since the bankruptcy began in 2019.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. On November 30, 2021, in Oxford, Michigan, a 15-year- old student took a gun to school and used it to shoot ten students and one teacher. Four students died. The shooter, whom we call E.C., pled guilty to first-degree murder and is now serving a life sentence. His parents are likewise in prison after juries convicted them of manslaughter. Meanwhile, victims of the shooting have brought multiple suits in state court, seeking recovery against school and law-enforcement officials on various theories of tort liability. Many of those suits remain pending. The consolidated cases here are different. What the plaintiffs assert here “is not a negligence claim, but one sounding in a rare species of one of the narrowest doctrines of constitutional law.” Doe v. Jackson Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 954 F.3d 925, 937 (6th Cir. 2020). For the most part the Constitution sets forth rules for government, both creating (or “constituting”) its powers and limiting them. The limitation the plaintiffs invoke here is that of “due process.” And to proceed with those claims, the plaintiffs must allege more than that the school officials in these cases—a counselor and the dean of students—made bad decisions or could have done more to prevent this tragedy. What the plaintiffs must show in these cases, rather, is that the actions of these two defendants were so outrageous, and so callous in their disregard of the danger posed by E.C., as to shock the conscience. The district court held that, with one exception, the plaintiffs had not alleged facts supporting any inference to that effect. We reach that same conclusion across the board—and thus we affirm in part and reverse in part.

After being convicted of several drug offenses, Charles R. Johnson, Petitioner, was sentenced to an effective thirty-year sentence. State v. Johnson, No. E2021-01106-CCA- R3-CD, 2023 WL 3535344, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 18, 2023), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner's direct appeal was unsuccessful. He sought post-conviction relief by filing a pro es petition ni which he argued that trial counsel was ineffective and that his due process rights were violated in various ways. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without appointment of counsel. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post- conviction court improperly dismissed the petition. After a review, we affirm the post- conviction court's summary dismissal of Petitioner's standalone due process claims. However, we reverse and remand the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without appointment of counsel or a hearing. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On remand, the post-conviction court should appoint counsel for Petitioner, allow Petitioner to amend his pro se petition, and hold a hearing on the petition.

The appellant, Ann Blankenship d/b/a Ann Blankenship Bonding, appeals her suspension from writing bonds in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District due to her failure to comply with the applicable statutes. Based upon the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral argument, we affirm that decision of the trial court.

This is an appeal arising from a decision by the Tennessee Board of Nursing (“the Board”) to revoke a registered nurse’s license after she retrieved the wrong medication from an automatic dispenser and administered it to a hospital patient, resulting in the patient’s death. The Tennessee Department of Health (“the Department”) brought an initial complaint against the nurse concerning the incident, which it first determined did not merit further action but then later re-opened. Simultaneously, the nurse faced criminal prosecution and was ultimately convicted of two criminal charges related to the incident. Following a contested hearing in the administrative proceedings, the Board revoked the nurse’s license. The nurse sought judicial review of this decision pursuant to Tennessee’s Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. During the judicial review proceeding, the nurse raised, for the first time, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as affirmative defenses to the Department’s complaint. In response, the Board argued that the nurse had waived these affirmative defenses because she had failed to raise them during the administrative proceedings. While the petition for judicial review remained pending, the criminal case moved to the sentencing phase. A doctor, who had testified as an expert witness in both the contested administrative proceeding and the criminal case, wrote a letter of support for the nurse to the criminal court judge in preparation for her sentencing. When the nurse learned of the doctor’s supportive letter, she moved the trial court to remand the instant case to the Board so that the Board could consider the contents of the letter in its decision. The trial court declined to remand the matter to the Board or to allow the nurse to present the letter to the Board as additional evidence. The trial court subsequently entered a final order, determining that the nurse had not waived the affirmative defenses of res judicata or judicial estoppel but declining to reverse the Board’s decision on those grounds. The trial court then affirmed the Board’s decision to revoke the nurse’s license. The nurse has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the nurse waived the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel because she failed to present those doctrines during the administrative proceedings Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s determination concerning waiver of those defenses. In all other respects, we affirm.

U.S. Rep. John Rose, R-Cookeville, announced at the Wilson County Tennessee State Fairgrounds in Lebanon that he will seek the 2026 Republican nomination to run for governor. He is the first to formally announce a major campaign, according to the Tennessean. Rose said his priorities as governor would be to safeguard the state’s low taxes, low debt, low regulations and Christian values through strong conservative leadership. He said his years of experience as a private businessman and farmer set him apart in the race. Rose has served in Congress since 2018, when he was elected to fill the seat vacated by U.S. Rep. Diane Black. He previously was the state’s agriculture commissioner. He is expected to face U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn for the nomination. While she has not made an official announcement she told the Tennessee Journal this week that she intends to run.

Last week, a federal judge said the Trump administration’s response to his request for more information on recent Venezuelan deportation flights was insufficient and failed to show it complied with an earlier court ruling, The Hill reports. In a new order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said the Justice Department missed the deadline to hand over flight information. The department instead had submitted a declaration that “Cabinet Secretaries are currently actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets privilege.” Boasberg on Wednesday had given the administration an extension to today to respond to his request for detailed information about weekend flights that deported alleged Venezuelan gang members, despite his order to turn the planes around. Last week, Boasberg preemptively blocked efforts to deport Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 after the ACLU sued over the plan.

A three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could determine the future size of the Metro Council. In 2023, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a law that would reduce the council's size from 40 to 20 members. In 2023 and again in 2024, a court placed an injunction on the law finding it to be unconstitutional under the state's Home Rule amendment, which prohibits legislation that specifically targets one local government. The state appealed that ruling, according to the Nashville Banner. During the hearing, Metro argued that the judges need not address the law's constitutionality and could rule that the council does not have to be reduced based on the law's plain language. The state countered that the law applies to all local governments in Tennessee and that Metro’s claim of exemption violated the Home Rule amendment. The judges did not indicate when a ruling would be issued. The next Metro elections are not scheduled until 2027.

A federal appeals court last week affirmed that a work of art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office, which had found that an image created by Stephen Thaler's AI system "DABUS" was not entitled to copyright protection, and that only works with human authors can be copyrighted, according to Reuters. The Copyright Office also has rejected artists' bids for copyrights on images generated by the AI system Midjourney. Thaler's attorney said he and his client "strongly disagree" with the ruling and intend to appeal. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said U.S. copyright law "requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being."