The Lawyers' Association for Women (LAW) Marion Griffin Chapter Foundation is now accepting applications for its 2026 grant program. Grants may be awarded in amounts up to $3,500 annually per applicant. Applications should be for programs that further the foundation’s mission. Applications are due by May 5 and should be submitted via email to lawmgcfoundation@gmail.com. Grant recipients will be acknowledged at the 2026 Annual LAW New Admittees’ Breakfast. Please note there are separate application forms for individual and organizational applicants. Learn more about the foundation’s mission and access the application forms online.

The American Bar Association (ABA) must face a conservative group’s lawsuit challenging the legality of its diversity scholarships for law students, Reuters reports. U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall denied the ABA's bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed in April by the American Alliance for Equal Rights. The alliance alleges that the 26-year-old Legal Opportunity Scholarship program discriminates against white applicants. The ABA argued that the group had no grounds to sue. The judge disagreed, finding that the group’s member — a white male who had applied to law school in 2025 and researched applying for the scholarship — had standing. Gottschall did not rule on the ABA’s claim that the program is protected by the First Amendment or that changes made to the program in October made it any more acceptable.

READLER, Circuit Judge. Facing mounting debt, Columbus-based Alliance Data Systems (ADS) spun off its LoyaltyOne division as a standalone company. As the spinoff was taking form, ADS executives pitched Loyalty to investors as a healthy business with long-term potential. But Loyalty was not without its challenges. In the months leading up to the spinoff, Loyalty’s crown jewel—its Canadian AIR MILES rewards program—began hemorrhaging clientele, culminating in the loss of its second largest customer a few months after the spinoff. And in the days ahead, those headwinds only grew stronger for Loyalty. Approximately a year and a half after the spinoff, Loyalty slid into bankruptcy, leaving investors in the red. Two funds within the investment firm Newtyn Management brought a class action on behalf of investors who, like Newtyn, purchased Loyalty’s stock, alleging securities fraud by ADS and three corporate executives. The district court, however, dismissed Newtyn’s complaint. To the district court’s mind, Newtyn both failed to explain in its complaint how defendants misled investors and failed to allege sufficiently defendants’ intent to do so. We agree and affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The federal drug laws increase a defendant’s minimum sentence for a new drug offense if the defendant had a prior “serious drug felony” conviction that had “become final” before the defendant committed that new offense. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). A previous crime can qualify as a “serious drug felony” only if the defendant “served” at least “12 months” in prison and was released “within 15 years” of the current offense. Id. § 802(58). In this case, the district court found as a fact that Aaron Loines’s prior federal drug offense met these elements. It thus imposed the statutory enhancement when sentencing Loines for new drug crimes. Loines now challenges that decision on several grounds, claiming that the Constitution required a jury to make the necessary findings, that the government acted arbitrarily and vindictively by requesting the enhancement, and that his prior conviction was not “final” when he committed his current crimes. But any error in failing to submit the issue to a jury was harmless. His challenges to the government’s decision to ask for this enhancement also cannot rebut our presumption that it properly exercised its prosecutorial discretion. And Loines misunderstands what it takes to make a conviction “final.” Lastly, our precedent forecloses his separate challenge to the district court’s use of a career-offender enhancement. We thus affirm.

In this case of first impression, Petitioner, Armon Yusef Pazouki, entered a conditional guilty plea to domestic assault pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (“the judicial diversion statute”). As part of the plea agreement, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioner judicial diversion and placing him on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days. At a subsequent revocation hearing, Petitioner conceded that he had violated the conditions of his diversionary probation, and pursuant to a new agreement with the State, the trial court revoked Petitioner’s judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to supervised probation. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation proceedings and that his plea agreement in that proceeding was unknowing and involuntary. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner could not collaterally attack a revocation of judicial diversion through a post-conviction petition. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the Post- Conviction Procedure Act does not apply to proceedings relating to the revocation of judicial diversion. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Ronald Eugene Fox, II, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder, tampering with evidence, and initiating a false report. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for his first degree murder conviction, the trial court’s denial of his motion to continue, and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first degree murder. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial warrants reversal of his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rickey Benson, acting pro se, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. After review, we affirm.

A physician disciplined by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners challenges the reasonableness and necessity of the costs assessed against him. We find substantial and material evidence to support the cost assessment and affirm the chancery court’s decision affirming the Board’s final order.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

This appeal presents the question of whether, under the Health Care Liability Act, a party in a wrongful death action can rely on a prior beneficiary’s pre-suit notice after succeeding to that beneficiary’s interest in the wrongful death litigation. The trial court concluded that such reliance is permissible. We affirm.