The Tennessee Bar Association again this year will honor the work of Tennessee journalists through the Fourth Estate Award, which honors courageous reporting on justice and the law. This year's prize, honoring reporting in 2024, includes a $250 honorarium for the winner. The TBA strongly supports freedom of expression under the First Amendment, as exercised by lawyers on behalf of their clients and by journalists on behalf of the public, and particularly wants to recognize and encourage journalists who promote public understanding of the rule of law and our system of justice through vigorous exercise of their First Amendment rights. The deadline for entry is April 30. Attorneys who have relationships with reporters or observed a particularly compelling piece of journalism in 2024 are encouraged to submit a nomination. Read about past recipients here and read the TBA's full press release.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed a new structure for handling the appointment of attorneys in indigent cases. One question that has been raised is how the practice of law will change if the plan is enacted. In a recent interview with TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr., AOC staff explained that the new system should improve administrative processes for those who take appointed civil cases. Lawyers no longer will have to apply for reimbursement through the ACAP system and will not be subject to caps. Flat fees for misdemeanor cases will be paid out quicker and with less paperwork. And while there will be some reporting requirements, they will not be as onerous as required under the current system. Those who currently have hourly contracts for capital cases will not see any real changes as they already enjoy many of the benefits provided by the new plan. Watch the full interview or learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee.

A nonprofit group that advocates for students with disabilities and individuals whose discrimination complaints have been put on hold are suing the U.S. Education Department over cuts to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). According to Bloomberg Law, the department has eliminated seven of OCR’s 12 regional offices and left only “skeleton staffing” at the remaining offices. “These actions harm students and their families who rely on the Department to ensure their access to educational opportunities, as required by the federal civil rights laws Congress charges OCR to enforce,” the complaint says. A similar suit filed by a group of states is challenging the department’s plan to fire 1,378 employees. The reduction in force will undermine the department’s ability to perform work mandated by federal law, that suit says. The National Center for Youth Law and Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. are representing the plaintiffs.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on three preliminary injunctions issued by federal district judges in Seattle, Maryland and Massachusetts, which bar the government from implementing the president’s executive order ending birthright citizenship in certain situations. The court is giving the other side until April 4 to respond, according to SCOTUSblog. The executive order made it official government policy that children born to mothers not legally in the country or here temporarily, and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of the birth, would not automatically become citizens of the country.

Legislation proposing state intervention in Memphis-Shelby County Schools (MSCS) passed its first hurdle in the Tennessee House's K-12 Education Subcommittee Tuesday morning, the Commercial Appeal reports. The bill now moves to the full Education Committee though no date for consideration has been set. The bill, if enacted, would establish a state-appointed board to assume control of school systems in four specific situations: when 30% of student grades are D or F, when the district falls into the bottom 5% of statewide performance, when there is 25% chronic absenteeism rate for students or when a vote of no confidence is taken by the local government body. Sponsor Rep. Mark White, R-Memphis, says he has been working on the proposal for two years and believes the move is in the best fiscal interest of the state due to the amount of money provided to MSCS.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. After a jury convicted Lonnie Hubbard of operating an illegal “pill mill,” the government punished him in the expected ways. The district court ordered Hubbard to serve decades in prison. The government also confiscated his homes, vehicles, watercraft, and financial accounts using the criminal-forfeiture laws. Years later, though, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought to punish Hubbard in an unexpected way. As part of the earlier forfeiture, the IRS had seized over $400,000 from Hubbard’s individual retirement account (or IRA, in the vernacular of retirement planning). The IRS suggested that the transfer of this money into its own coffers qualified as “income” for Hubbard that he should have paid taxes on from prison. The tax court agreed and ordered Hubbard to pay over $180,000 in taxes and penalties.

We reverse. The tax court found that the transfer of the IRA funds qualified as Hubbard’s income because it discharged an “obligation” that Hubbard owed. This conclusion misunderstood the type of forfeiture at issue. When courts impose a forfeiture, they can either grant the government ownership of a specific asset or enter a money judgment that allows the government to collect on any of the defendant’s property. The forfeiture order in Hubbard’s case granted the IRS ownership of his IRA; it did not enter a money judgment against him. So when the IRS withdrew the funds from the IRA, it was not taking Hubbard’s money to discharge a debt. It was simply transferring its own money. The tax code provides that the “payee or distributee” of withdrawn IRA funds should pay these taxes. 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(1). Because the IRS owned and controlled the IRA and received the funds, it qualified as the payee or distributee.

The Metro Nashville Council adopted legislation this week to add guardrails to Fusus, a camera surveillance system that will allow the Nashville Police Department to access businesses’ private security footage with the owner’s consent to address calls for service. The proposal had failed by one vote last year. This year, the legislation received eight additional votes. Debate on the measure centered on whether the cameras could be used for government overreach or target marginalized communities. Supporters argued that the system will not be used to target immigrants or specific groups. “It is just a photo of a criminal leaving a business,” said council member Bob Nash. He has supported the system from the beginning. Read more from the Nashville Post.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Three Kentucky Republican Party county executive committees (“the executive committees”) challenge the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s (“the Registry”) requirement that they register as a political issues committee to expend funds in support of a state constitutional amendment that was on the November 2024 general-election ballot. The district court denied the executive committees’ application for a preliminary injunction. Because we initially construed the Registry’s requirement as a ban on the executive committees’ speech, we granted an injunction pending appeal of the preliminary-injunction denial. Upon further briefing and oral argument, we now conclude that the Registry has imposed only a disclosure requirement on the executive committees, which is sufficiently tailored to the Registry’s interests in providing the public with timely and accurate information about ballot-issue campaigns. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The pro se Petitioner, Jamauri Ransom, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order granting the State of Mississippi’s request that he be extradited to Mississippi on a murder indictment. We conclude that the Petitioner has waived consideration of his claim regarding the alleged invalidity of the extradition paperwork by failing to include an adequate record for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Dale Merritt, appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.