SUTTON, Chief Judge. When Stanley Dickson sold the assets of one of his businesses, he asked his IT administrator to create email accounts for the buyers to use and permitted the employees of the two companies to use the accounts. Several months after the deal closed, the relationship between the parties soured and the parties tried to unwind the deal. In the interim, the IT administrator preserved some of the emails from those accounts for the ensuing litigation. At stake is whether the IT administrator’s search of the buyers’ email accounts violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or Stored Communications Act. It did not. When the IT administrator entered his own credentials to search the email accounts that he managed, he did not intentionally act without authorization and he did not intentionally exceed his authorization.

Tyrone E. Murphy, Petitioner, appeals from the Hamilton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and tampering with evidence. Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Jaylon Lebron Hill, appeals his Hamilton County Criminal Court convictions for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, reckless endangerment, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of 23 years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a petition to terminate parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that one ground for termination existed as to the father based on a prior adjudication of severe child abuse and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand.

In the second appeal in this case, Mother appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of her parental rights is in her child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

For the week of July 1, 2024 - July 5, 2024

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a nonprofit organization that advocates for the separation of church and state, sent a letter of concern to Battle Creek Middle School in Spring Hill after a parent told the organization that the school’s principal, Mike Kinnard, led students in prayer at a May 23 graduation ceremony. According to the Tennessean, this is the second incident with Kinnard, who was challenged by FFRF in 2023 for using Bible verses and prayer to conclude an awards ceremony. Maury County Schools Superintendent Lisa Ventura responded to FFRF, in identical letters, that she spoke privately with the principal about both incidents. Despite the repeat incidents at the school, FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said she is optimistic that the school will take steps to ensure adherence to the establishment clause. “We’re pleased that Battle Creek will ensure graduation ceremonies going forward will honor the accomplishments of students instead of being misused for religious proselytization.”

The Tennessee Bar Association is conducting a survey to better understand attorneys' professional needs, and feedback is critical to ensure TBA can best support lawyers in Tennessee. Please watch your inbox July 10 for an email from President Ed Lanquist Jr. with survey instructions. On July 12, you'll receive an email invite from Avenue M Group LLC, an independent market research firm and our partner for this survey. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete and is intended for both current members and nonmembers.

THE MAJOR DEBATE: THE BASIS AND EFFECT OF THE MQD IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE^[1]

In June of 2022, a majority of the Supreme Court invoked the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) for the first time.^[2] This young doctrine attempts to address what the Supreme Court views as a developing problem following the boom of the administrative state: “agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”^[3] The MQD curtails this effort by expecting Congress to be clear when “authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”^[4] If Congress has not been clear, a court will not presume a grant of authority.^[5]

With roots traceable no earlier than 1994 (by the most generous estimates), the doctrine is relatively new.^[6] Nevertheless, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court argue the MQD is grounded in principles that justify its endorsement.^[7] Exactly what that provenance is, the justices do not agree.^[8] But whatever its provenance, the MQD purports to reign-in the administrative state,^[9] reserve lawmaking to “the people” through their democratically elected representatives,^[10] and reassert the court’s position in deciding questions of law and statutory interpretation.^[11]

As the doctrine gains traction, concerns multiply regarding broader implications for the administrative state. Most prominently, the MQD has tempered — or eclipsed — the deferential Chevron doctrine which has restrained courts from asserting their own interpretations over the “reasonable” agency interpretations of “ambiguous” enabling statutes.^[12] Legal theorists grow concerned the anti-agency momentum espoused in the MQD may lead to the downfall of the administrative state.^[13] Even now, Chevron itself sits on the judicial chopping block.^[14]

Perhaps most problematic for practitioners, Chevron deference and the MQD seem to occupy a similar, if not identical, field of applicability. Yet their analyses are far from parallel: Chevron involves an agency-friendly, deferential rule while the MQD doctrine applies a more “skeptical” approach to agency action.^[15] While the intersection between the deferential Chevron and the skeptical MQD has led to unease, these seemingly oil and water doctrines can be reconciled. Far from “a completely unbearable cover story that masks a deregulatory agenda,”^[16] the MQD has a modest, logical place in administrative jurisprudence: a place that need not topple the administrative state. While the doctrine may not be a mouse, it need not be an elephant.^[17]

This paper argues that the MQD belongs in the constitutional field of nondelegation as a companion to the intelligible principle test — not merely a component of statutory interpretation as a companion to Chevron. Placing the MQD in this framework provides substance to largely ignored constitutional restraints,^[18] mirrors current precedent in the intelligible principle,^[19] and justifies the differences between the MQD and Chevron deference.^[20]

View the full submission here

General Sessions Criminal Court Judge Sheila Renfroe has responded to allegations of bias from Assistant Public Defender Melody Carlisle, calling them an attempt to “impugn the integrity” of her court and alleging Carlisle has "knowingly made misrepresentations to the court in representation of her clients." Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Chris Craft agreed Renfroe has taken actions that are “clearly indicative of personal animosity" toward Carlisle and removed Renfroe from 28 cases on June 28; Renfroe then filed an order reinstating herself to some of the cases. Craft, who has superseding jurisdiction over Renfroe’s court, subsequently filed a motion July 1 canceling Renfroe’s motion and affirming his ruling to keep her off all 28 cases, reports the Daily Memphian. Renfroe's response states that Carlisle is "disrespectful" and "sarcastic," and that her body language has been "disruptive" in court. Carlisle has explained it is partly a result of a medical condition.