A federal judge in Seattle has extended an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from medical providers in four states that offer medical treatments to transgender minors. U.S. District Judge Lauren King ruled that two of President Donald Trump's executive orders were unconstitutional, arguing they intrude on Congress’ authority to allocate federal funds and violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, Reuters reports. One of the blocked orders directs the federal government to recognize only two biological sexes and restrict funding that promotes "gender ideology." King issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 14 and has now granted a preliminary injunction. The decision comes after a federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked executive orders dealing with federal funding for transgender activities in February. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender medical treatments for minors. After taking office, the Trump administration changed the government's position on the case, dropping its opposition to the state law.

The TBA YLD will host its second Exploration CLE at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Spencer on May 30. Attendees will earn three hours of CLE credit while enjoying the natural beauty of one of Tennessee’s state parks. The program includes a ranger-led hike and lunch, offering a unique opportunity to blend professional development with outdoor exploration. Registration begins at 9 a.m., with sessions running from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. CDT For more information and to register, visit the TBA website.

Your staff and clients rely on you to keep their information safe. That’s why data security is a top priority for LawPay. With features like military-grade encryption, you and your clients can rest assured that data is protected. However, you may have questions about other areas of data security, such as cloud computing or how to ensure your data stays safe in (and out) of LawPay. Download LawPay’s free e-book to find the answers you need to enhance cybersecurity and give your team and clients peace of mind. Learn more >>

The March/April issue of the Tennessee Bar Journal is now available online. Enjoy J. Hunter Robinson and Erik Halvorson's cover story on the Case v. Wilmington decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court, David Hudson Jr. and Bill Spaniard's look at remorse in lawyer disciplinary hearings, and columns by Buddy Stockwell, Wade Davies and Russell Fowler. TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr. reminds readers that lawyers can have a profound effect on their communities through active engagement in local initiatives and civic activities. Also get plenty of news in The Legal Life, including announcements of future leadership, an upgraded legal research tool launch, a tiny new addition to the TBA staff, mock trial information, an update on the Justice Drowota Trust and more!

The Industrial Development Board of the County of Knox and the Health, Educational and Housing Facility Board of the County of Knox, governed by an 11-member board of directors, are seeking retention of legal counsel to perform tasks, services and assignments as referenced in this Request for Proposals. Contact Mac McWhorter, director of site operations, at mmcwhorter@knoxvillechamber.com with any questions.

In this month's episode of BarBuzz, TBA Executive Director Sheree Wright speaks with Liz Todaro, TBA director of access to justice and special projects, and John Farringer, a commercial litigator with Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison and TBA’s incoming president for the 2027-2028 bar year. The discussion focuses on the Administrative Office of the Courts’ plan for funding indigent representation, a key issue shaping legal access in Tennessee. The group also talks about the importance of TBA's Day on the Hill and Big Shrimp Legislative Reception, two events that connect legal professionals with lawmakers to advocate for issues such as indigent defense funding. TBA’s 2025 Day on the Hill and Big Shrimp Reception will take place next week in Nashville. Register for the day's events on the TBA website or get more information about indigent defense in Tennessee. Find past episodes of the podcast in the BarBuzz archive.

The indigent representation proposal from the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court addresses a number of challenges in the state's current system. One benefit of the proposal would be eliminating the use of court time to appoint attorneys for these cases. Under the plan, judges would be able to rely on the proposed "Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel," which would assume responsibility for appointing lawyers in child welfare cases and criminal cases when the public defender has a conflict. In addition, the proposed "Indigent Representation Commission" would be charged with reviewing, developing and, where possible, implementing procedures to improve accountability and prevent misuse of the system. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. 

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (the “Sault Tribe”) objects to the district court’s entry of the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree (the “2023 Decree”). The Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources (the “Coalition”) mounted a similar challenge in a separate but related appeal. The 2023 Decree results from a three-year negotiation between seven sovereigns—the United States, the State of Michigan, the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (collectively, the “Tribes”)—to resolve their differences in the allocation, management, and regulation of fishing in the Great Lakes waters. It reflects a balance that the parties struck between preserving the Tribes’ treaty- reserved rights and preserving the fishery waters as an ecological resource. As the only party that refused to stipulate to the 2023 Decree’s entry, the Sault Tribe argued that the district court (i) lacked the jurisdiction to enter the 2023 Decree without its consent and (ii) failed to evaluate the decree’s tribal fishing regulations based on the rigorous standard set out in People v. LeBlanc, 248 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. 1976). In addition, the Sault Tribe raised 137 “specific” objections to the 2023 Decree’s provisions based on a more generalized assertion that the 2023 Decree unduly restricts its tribal rights under an 1836 treaty. The district court overruled all of the Sault Tribe’s objections and entered the 2023 Decree, thereby binding the Sault Tribe to the 2023 Decree’s terms. United States v. Michigan, 2023 WL 5444315, at *70 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2023). On appeal, we affirm the district court’s entry of the 2023 Decree.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The immigration laws list many reasons why an immigrant may not be admissible into the United States, but they also give the Attorney General discretion to waive some of these grounds for inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), (i)(1). To obtain this type of waiver, an immigrant must show “to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative. Id. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v); see also id. § 1182(i)(1). The Board of Immigration Appeals in this case held that Nuzaira Rahman had failed to establish the required hardship and thus denied her requested waivers. Rahman asks us to review the Board’s hardship conclusion. Yet the immigration laws broadly deprive us of jurisdiction to review these discretionary denials. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Rahman responds that the laws allow us to review “questions of law” even in this waiver context. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). She adds that the Supreme Court has held that the Board’s hardship finding in a different context falls within this jurisdictional safe harbor. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212 (2024). Unlike the hardship provisions in this case, though, the hardship provision in Wilkinson did not clarify that an immigrant must prove hardship “to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.” We must give effect to this language. It shows that Congress committed the hardship inquiry to agency discretion in the waiver context. We thus lack jurisdiction over the Board’s hardship conclusion and dismiss Rahman’s petition for review.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is seeking comments on the reappointment of Randal S. Mashburn, bankruptcy judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, to a 14-year term that would begin on Jan. 12, 2026. Members of the bar and the public are invited to submit comments to be considered during the reappointment process. All comments will be kept confidential and should be mailed to Circuit Executive Marc Theriault, 503 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 100 East Fifth St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 or be submitted via email. All comments must be received no later than April 16. Contact the Office of the Circuit Executive at 513-564-7200 for more information. Read the full announcement from the court.