The latest issue of the Tennessee Bar Journal is live online and full of articles of interest to lawyers across practice areas! In this issue's cover story, Nathan Drake, Amy Bryson Smith and Mary Lauren Teague of Belmont University College of Law look at three recent copyright decisions and how courts are analyzing the legitimacy of using copyrighted material without permission to train AI platforms. Brad Bald's feature focuses on the importance of change orders in construction projects and how to effectively manage them. And TBJ turns 60 this year! Heidi Barcus' President's Perspective column kicks off our celebration. Enjoy a retrospective timeline of the last six decades of the Journal. Our regular columns Crime & Punishment, History's Verdict and The Buddy System are inside, as well as a book review and information about running for TBA office in 2026. Look for the print version in mailboxes in the next few weeks!

The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and nonbinary individuals from choosing passport sex markers that match their gender identity, SCOTUSblog reports. The ruling halts a lower court order that required the government to let people select "male," "female" or "X" on new and renewed passports to reflect their gender identity. It permits the administration to continue enforcing its policy while a lawsuit over the issue moves through the courts. The lawsuit argues that listing the sex assigned at birth on passports could lead to harassment or violence against transgender people. The court found that the State Department’s policy does not appear to discriminate against transgender individuals and “attests to a historical fact.”

Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his former chief of staff, Cade Cothren, reportedly received calls from President Donald Trump on Thursday offering them full pardons for their convictions, according to the Nashville Post. No official paperwork has appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney's website. The two were found guilty in May of honest services wire fraud, conspiracy, bribery, theft and money laundering in a mailer fraud scheme. In September, Cothren was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, while Casada received a three-year federal prison sentence. Legal counsel for both men had requested a mistrial, which was denied, and were pursuing appeals of their convictions. Former Rep. Robin Smith, R-Hixson, who was also involved in the scheme, is seeking a pardon from the president as well.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker said he plans to deny Shelby County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr.’s motion to dismiss a charge in the federal criminal case against him, the Commercial Appeal reports. Attorney Michael Scholl filed the motion in October to dismiss the first count in the indictment, which specifically charges Ford with bribery, arguing in court documents that the charge is “unconstitutionally vague and insufficient.” The order had not been entered as of Nov. 6. Ford was indicted in February 2025 on federal bribery and attempted tax evasion charges stemming from a grant scheme.

The Knox County Commission voted to temporarily shelve for six months a pair of proposed ordinances that would compel nonprofits receiving county grants to pledge not to serve immigrants without legal status. According to the Tennessee Lookout, the vote came after groups stood before the panel of commissioners to deliver pleas against approving the ordinances with no expressed support for the measures during a public comment period. The two ordinances were initially introduced by Commissioner Angela Russell, an accountant who said the county should more strictly monitor nonprofits that receive county funds. One ordinance would attach the new requirements to nonprofits receiving funding via the county’s hotel tax while the other applies to general funds distributed to nonprofits. The county distributes about $1.9 million in grants to nonprofits annually — less than 1% of its budget.

Disciplinary Counsel Heather Piper with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) will lead the TBA's Ethics Update 2025-2026 webcast on Nov. 17 from 11 a.m. to noon CST. The session will review recent ethics developments from the BPR and offer attorneys a convenient opportunity to earn dual CLE credit before the Dec. 31 deadline. To register, visit the TBA website.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Following law enforcement’s seizure of funds in the amount of $603,902.89 from California Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc., the facility and its owner brought a civil action seeking recovery of the funds and, in addition, disclosure of the affidavits on which the Government relied to secure warrants to seize the funds. While this litigation was pending, the Government moved for voluntary dismissal in a parallel forfeiture proceeding and voluntarily returned the funds to the Plaintiffs. The district court, acting sua sponte and citing the voluntary return of the funds, dismissed this case as moot, even though the Plaintiffs contended they still had a right to disclosure of the warrant affidavits. Because we find there is still a live case or controversy over the claim seeking disclosure of the affidavits, we VACATE IN PART the district court’s sua sponte dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person’s sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood—that a person’s gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district’s speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students’ viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students—including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case? The Supreme Court’s cases provide a clear answer. A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would “materially and substantially disrupt” school activities or infringe the legal “rights of others” in the school community. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969). In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive—just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view. We thus reverse and remand for the entry of an appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns. Yet nothing we say here forecloses the district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students just as it enforces those policies against the abuse of all other students.

The Defendant, Mitchell Stanley Pozezinski, Jr., was found guilty after a bench trial before the Montgomery County Circuit Court of two counts of violating the conditions of his community supervision for life by failing to comply with a polygraph assessment and by failing to complete a psychosexual evaluation. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-524 (Supp. 2002) (subsequently amended) (sentence of community supervision for life); 39-13-526 (2018) (violations of community supervision). On appeal, the Defendant asserts the proof is insufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Tyler David Mashburn, entered an open plea of guilt to one count of aggravated assault with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of the sentence. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Defendant requested judicial diversion and submitted a certificate of eligibility. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied diversion and imposed a five-year sentence of split confinement, with nine months to serve and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.