Five Memphis-Shelby County Schools (MSCS) board members and the district have sued the Shelby County Election Commission, arguing that new state and county election changes unlawfully shorten their four-year terms by forcing them onto the 2026 ballot. The lawsuit claims the changes violate the Tennessee Constitution and were a coordinated effort by lawmakers and county commissioners to punish board members who voted to fire former Superintendent Marie Feagins. According to the Daily Memphian, attorneys are seeking an injunction to block the five seats from appearing on the 2026 ballot as partisan school board elections. Feagins in November announced she would run for Shelby County mayor.

This appeal involves judicial review of an administrative agency decision. The trial court found that the agency’s decision lacked a foundation of substantial and material evidence and remanded the matter to the agency for further investigation or proceedings. Having determined that the trial court impermissibly re-weighed the evidence presented in this matter, we reverse the court’s judgment and affirm the agency’s decision.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Dec. 15 censured Alabama lawyers William Jefferson Cranford III and Matthew Brett Reeves. According to the court, Cranford drafted, signed and personally filed two motions for a client that included fabricated citations generated by using Artificial Intelligence (AI). The citations were added to the motions by another attorney, but the court found that Cranford had an obligation to check the citations before signing the motions and filing them. It also determined that he failed to act with diligence and caused a delay in his client’s case. In addition, the court found that Reeves personally used AI to add citations to two motions. The court found that the citations were fabricated and Reeves took no action to check their accuracy. It also determined that he failed to act with diligence and caused a delay in his client’s case. The actions of Cranford and Reeves were deemed to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4.

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law (LMU Law) has promoted Assistant Professor of Law Kayla Swiney to director of bar success. In this role, Swiney will oversee bar preparation initiatives and provide support to students and graduates throughout the bar exam and admissions process. Swiney’s leadership will be central as the law school transitions to preparing students for the NextGen Uniform Bar Exam, according to a news release. “I am so excited to take on the role of director of bar success and to assist our students from their first day of law school through the final stages of bar preparation,” Swiney said. “The implementation of the NextGen bar exam will allow me the unprecedented opportunity to work side by side with our graduates to ensure they feel supported, confident and ready to succeed on this new exam.”

Attorneys for Metro Nashville's legal department have reviewed an ethics complaint against Metro Councilmember Rollin Horton, filed by a group of his West Nashville constituents. The attorneys found that, if true, the allegations in the complaint did not rise to ethics violations and will recommend to the Board of Ethical Conduct that the complaint be dismissed. The complaint stems largely from a failed recall effort and cites incidents including an Instagram post that displayed a resident’s address, police being called on petition gatherers and alleged pressure on business owners. The Nashville Banner reports on the developments.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A Michigan State Trooper conducted a traffic stop for a vehicle with expired registration. During the stop, the trooper learned that the passenger, Adam Santos, was a convicted felon known to be potentially armed and dangerous. In the course of removing the driver and Santos from the car, the trooper found that Santos had a gun. An indictment followed for unlawful possession of a gun by a felon. Santos moved to suppress the gun as evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and we affirm.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. TwinSpires, an Oregon-based electronic wagering platform and a business unit of Churchill Downs Inc., accepts interstate wagers on horseraces. This is legal under the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) if TwinSpires obtains consent from state regulators and the racetrack’s racing association. But which state regulators? TwinSpires says only Oregon and the racetrack’s home state. Michigan says it too can regulate wagers that are made in Michigan but accepted on the TwinSpires application. So when TwinSpires fell out of compliance with Michigan’s regulations, Michigan revoked TwinSpires’ license under the Michigan Horse Racing Law (MHRL). TwinSpires sued, arguing that Michigan’s enforcement of the MHRL is inconsistent with the IHA. The district court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction. And we agree with the district court. TwinSpires is likely to show that the IHA preempts Michigan’s licensing requirement, and the other preliminary injunction factors favor TwinSpires. So we affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jacob Blankenship appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky Metro Government and Elliott Young. At summary judgment, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s free speech, free exercise, and due process claims against both Defendants. The district court also dismissed Plaintiff’s Monell municipal liability claim against Defendant Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky Metro Government and granted qualified immunity to Defendant Elliott Young. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Jorge Andujar and Franklin Pena Batista worked for years as delivery drivers for Hub Group Trucking, Inc. In 2023, they filed a putative class action against Hub Group, alleging that the company violated the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-4.1 et seq., and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56a et seq. But Andujar and Batista had choice-of-law provisions in their contracts with Hub Group requiring Tennessee law to govern any disputes. So Hub Group sought to enforce these provisions and dismiss the New Jersey-law claims. The district court agreed with Hub Group and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs now challenge the district court’s dismissal. We hold that the choice-of-law provisions in the contracts are unenforceable because there is no material connection between Tennessee and the transactions at issue. We thus reverse the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to four biological children and one child for whom he was the legal parent. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We affirm.