President Donald Trump, along with several cabinet members, attended a Memphis Safe Task Force roundtable, according to the Daily Memphian. In remarks that also touched on foreign and domestic policy, Trump praised Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee and Memphis Mayor Paul Young — who was not in attendance — for their efforts, noting the decline in the city’s homicide rate. The Commercial Appeal reports that the task force has made 7,240 arrests and seized 1,188 firearms. Trump was joined on the visit by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, U.S. Marshals Service Director Gadyaces Serralta, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Lee, Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, and House Speaker Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, were on hand to represent the state. The task force has been working in Memphis since September 2025 and has added more than 1,500 federal personnel to the city’s law enforcement presence. Watch the remarks from USA Today. Congressman Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, was set to hold press conference prior to the president’s event according to News 5, while state Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, held a protest rally and Mayor Young released a statement after the visit.

The Davidson County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office is warning residents about scam emails and text messages claiming recipients have outstanding parking or toll violations, according to Local News Break. The messages include fake links or QR codes that lead to fraudulent websites. In a press release, Clerk Joseph P. Day said the court does not send texts or emails about past-due tickets. Officials advise recipients not to click links or scan QR codes, and not to share personal or financial information. Legitimate Tennessee government emails end in “@tn.gov” and residents should use verified contact information rather than details provided in suspicious messages. Those with questions can call 615-880-3305 or email circuitclerkpr@nashville.gov to confirm.

HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. The presence of probable cause generally permits police officers to make arrests. And as officers perform their duties, speech can play a permissible role in assessing threats and whether conduct is criminal. At the same time, police cannot use probable cause as a pretext to retaliate against individuals for protected expression. Retaliatory arrest claims arise at the crossroads of those rules. So they can trigger complex causation disputes—particularly since unlawful motive can be easy to allege and hard to disprove. Yet if left unchecked, protracted, post-arrest litigation risks chilling officers’ carrying out of important public-safety functions. The Supreme Court’s retaliatory arrest framework, set out in Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), seeks to balance those concerns. Under Nieves, the presence of probable cause “generally defeat[s]” a First Amendment claim of retaliatory arrest. Id. at 406. But there’s a “narrow” out: A claim can proceed “when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” Id. at 406-07. This case implicates the scope of that exception. At issue are officers’ arrests of Daniel and Shatina Grady during a late-night shooting investigation outside a Michigan residence. Those arrests came after the Gradys approached officers’ investigatory perimeter—set up around a suspected shooter’s location—and refused repeated commands to step back while loudly questioning the instructing officers’ authority. The district court concluded that the Gradys’ conduct gave officers probable cause to arrest them under Michigan law. Yet as the district court saw it, the Gradys’ retaliatory arrest claim fell within the Nieves exception because other onlookers had not criticized police and were not arrested. And it deemed those onlookers similarly situated to the Gradys even though they stood well outside the officers’ perimeter and had not defied officers’ commands. We conclude that the Gradys’ cited comparators were not similarly situated for purposes of satisfying the Nieves exception. Nor did the Gradys come forward with any other objective evidence sufficient to permit their claim to proceed. So Nieves’s general rule—that the presence of probable cause defeats retaliatory arrest claims—governs here. We therefore reverse the district court’s contrary decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Paul Curry appeals his convictions and sentence arising out of his arrest on April 2, 2023. He argues that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and that the prejudicial admission of jail calls he made before trial tainted his proceedings. He also challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm Curry’s convictions and sentence.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. A jury found Michael Bailey guilty of two counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute illegal narcotics. He was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy charges. We AFFIRM.

The petitioner was employed at the Light, Gas, and Water Division of the City of Memphis (“MLGW”). During his employment, the employee participated in a pension plan. The employee was terminated in July 2016 but did not apply for his pension benefits. In 2022, the employee filed two retirement applications that were rejected. Both applications sought the payment of pension benefits retroactive to the 2016 termination date. The employee appealed to MLGW’s pension board. The pension board accepted the second application and instituted the payment of benefits as of its filing date. However, the board declined to award benefits retroactive to 2016. The employee sought judicial review in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The court held that the decision to deny the first application was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the payment of benefits to be deemed effective as of the date it was filed. However, it found that the decision to deny the claim for retroactive benefits stemming from the date of termination was not arbitrary and capricious as it was in accordance with the pension system’s plan. The employee appeals. We affirm.

On March 23, the Tennessee Supreme Court temporarily suspended Carter County lawyer Jason Lee Holly from the practice of law after finding that he failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility on two misconduct complaints. Holly is precluded immediately from accepting any new cases and must cease representing existing clients by April 22. The suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the court.

Appellant brought this action after his car was painted the wrong color. During the course of the proceedings, the trial court ordered the parties to submit to mediation subject to certain guidelines requiring good faith participation, denied Appellant’s motion to recuse, granted Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Appellant’s claim for punitive damages, and ultimately granted Appellees’ motion to confess judgment as to Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and negligence. Appellant appeals each of these rulings. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to Appellees’ motion to confess judgment, but affirm in all other respects.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this appeal, an employee of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department challenges the termination of her employment on the ground that she lacked a required certification to serve as a police officer after a psychological examiner deemed her not qualified to hold her position. The local civil service board initially upheld the termination, but that decision was vacated by the trial court, and the matter remanded. On remand, the local civil service board disapproved of the termination and reinstated the officer. The matter was appealed once again to the trial court, where a different judge held that the board’s decision was based on improper procedure, unsupported by substantial and material evidence, and arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the decision of the trial court and reinstate the decision of the local civil service board.