The state’s Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction of Russell Maze on Friday. Maze, a Nashville man, has been imprisoned for more than two decades for the shaking death of his infant son. According to ProPublica, the court said there was insufficient evidence to prove his innocence, despite the original medical examiner in the case — whose testimony helped secure the 2004 conviction — recanting that testimony. The examiner now says the baby died of natural causes. The district attorney's office had launched a reinvestigation of the case and determined that the baby died from an undiagnosed medical condition. The court rejected that finding, saying the review failed to establish any new scientific evidence, and that the evidence it did yield failed to provide "clear and convincing proof" that Maze is actually innocent.

The Tennessee Department of Correction is requesting a $13 million contract increase for CoreCivic, the private prison company that operates four state facilities. According to the Moore County News, the increase — part of an $86 million budget request for fiscal year 2026-2027 — would raise the department’s total budget to $1.57 billion and CoreCivic’s contracts to $243 million. Correction Commissioner Frank Strada said the additional funding is needed to address inflation and maintain pay parity between CoreCivic and state-run facilities. CoreCivic has faced criticism for high staff turnover and inmate death rates, including at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center, which is under Department of Justice investigation following a riot this summer. The company has been penalized more than $45 million since 2022 for failing to meet staffing requirements.

The TBA will host "The Ethical Campaign 2025: Maintaining Ethics and Professionalism in Elections" on Dec. 2 from 11:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. CST at the Nashville office of Adams & Reese. This advanced-level program is designed for state and local lawmakers, judges, candidates, and campaign chairs, treasurers and counsel. It will cover legal and ethical issues related to the 2026 election, including compliance with election laws and campaign finance practices. Speakers include William “Paz” Haynes III of Spencer Fane, Thomas Lawless of Lawless & Associates, Lucian Pera and Gif Thornton of Adams & Reese, Lauren Topping of Holtzman Vogel and Bill Young of the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance. Lunch and networking opportunities are included. Space is limited so register today on the TBA website.

The 2026 TBA BCBST health plans now include an added benefit of a $15,000 life insurance policy for each employee enrolled in the health plan. The coverage is automatic and will cost $3 per subscriber, per month. In addition, a voluntary guaranteed issue option is available for employees to purchase additional coverage for themselves and their dependents. Learn more.

At next week’s 37th Annual Health Law Forum, section members will recognize the service of Section Chair Imad Abdullah and formally vote on Chair-elect Travis Lloyd assuming this role. Abdullah is the chief legal officer at Regional One Health, where he serves as the principal attorney and general counsel for the health system. Lloyd is a member at Bass Berry & Sims in the firm’s Nashville office where he represents a broad range of health care industry clients, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, post-acute providers, behavioral health providers and physician practices.

The ceremony will take place during the Friday section business lunch. This free opportunity is open to all TBA Health Law Section members; you do not have to be registered for the forum to attend the lunch. Learn more and RSVP here.

In an era of deep political polarization, the Biden and Trump administrations found rare common ground — not on immigration, climate change, or health care but on something far more procedural: a shared frustration with courts that enjoin federal policies nationwide.[1] Even Supreme Court justices have voiced frustration. To quote Justice Kagan: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks ... for the years that it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.”[2] Thus, nationwide injunctions are likely in the court’s crosshairs.

           This is not a surprise with recent headlines of federal judges blocking a myriad of Trump administration policies, from birthright citizenship to the mass firing of federal employees.[3] The Biden administration also battled this problem on several occasions.[4] For example, Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan was enjoined nationwide by a federal judge in Missouri.[5] It seems nationwide injunctions frustrate all presidents, regardless of their party.[6] Now, bipartisan forces have begun to pressure Congress and the Supreme Court to reign in these sweeping remedies.[7]

           But what if Congress already has a statute that allows federal courts to impose a certain subspecies of nationwide injunctions? That question describes the debate over whether “vacatur” — the act of vacating an agency’s rule and thereby erasing it from the Code of Federal Regulations — is a valid remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On a few occasions, the Supreme Court considered the issue without ruling on it.[8] The questioning at oral argument in those cases revealed division along unexpected lines. Instead of the usual ideological breakdown, the Chief Justice along with Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson (the "D.C. Circuit Cartel," as Kagan put it)[9] opposed a more expected duo: Justices Gorsuch and Thomas.[10] Of course, Kagan’s comment that a nationwide injunction “just can’t be” a remedy seems to make it an even three-to-three split crossing the usual ideological divide.[11] 

           On the one hand, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kagan have indicated a federal judge can only prevent the rule at issue from applying to the parties in front of the court.[12] On the other hand, some members of the court, like Kavanaugh, find that idea offensive because of the decades of reliance on vacatur’s validity and the limited reach of the other APA remedies.[13] The issue seemed poised for a resolution in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,[14] but Justice Barrett avoided the vacatur question in her majority opinion.[15] Nevertheless, Kavanaugh wrote a thorough concurrence defending the decades-old practice.[16]

           Corner Post was not the court’s first time discussing vacatur’s status as an APA remedy. After the nationwide injunction trend started picking up, vacatur became a hot topic during oral argument for United States v. Texas.[17] In that case, the three D.C. circuit alums called the government’s argument against vacatur a “radical” reshaping of APA challenges to agency rules.[18] The implications of this percolating debate are nothing short of imperative for administrative law. Although the resolution has massive consequences for the future of judicial review of agency actions, the outcome ironically relies on the interpretation of just two words: “set aside.”

          The conclusion that best reflects the text of the APA is for the Supreme Court to formally recognize vacatur as a remedy in section 706. To understand this point, it is necessary to describe vacatur and its implications as separate from the idea of nationwide injunctions.[19] Then, using the modern paradigm of statutory interpretation, the analysis must unpack the APA’s directive for courts to “set aside” unlawful agency action.[20] Though seemingly straightforward, this phrase has given rise to competing interpretations. One reading treats “set aside” as authorizing courts to vacate all kinds of agency actions. The opposing view construes “set aside” more narrowly, requiring courts to only disregard the unlawful action in resolving the case before them. Settling this debate requires careful attention to the statutory text, including how “set aside” was understood at the time APA was enacted and how the phrase functions within the statute’s broader structure.  

To read Sterne's award-winning paper in its entirety, click here.

The TBA Administrative Law Section has announced recent Belmont University College of Law graduate Zach Sterne as the winner of the 2024-2025 TBA Administrative Law Section Writing Competition. The judges found that Sterne’s essay, "Standing Up for Setting Aside: Vacatur’s Valid Role as a Remedy Under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act," was both timely and captured the spirit of the competition. The section’s executive council would like to thank all of the students who submitted papers for their thoughtful and impressive entries.

Sterne graduated magna cum laude from Belmont University College of Law in May 2025, where he served as managing editor of the Belmont Law Review and was recognized as its “Most Valuable Editor.” During law school, Sterne also distinguished himself as chief brief writer and swing advocate for the championship team at the 2025 McGee Civil Rights Moot Court Competition, where he earned both the Best Oral Advocate Award and Top Respondent Brief Award. Sterne is now an associate attorney at Ortale Kelley, where his practice focuses on federal litigation, civil rights, appellate advocacy, complex tort litigation and government liability. His background in complex motion practice, appellate brief writing and legal research allows him to provide high-value analysis and representation to both individual and institutional clients, according to the firm.

A preview of Sterne's winning submission can be found below, including a link to the full text.

Mario Perkins, Petitioner, appeals from the trial court’s denial of a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding because the “grounds alleged in the petition do not satisfy any of the criteria set out in Tenn[essee] Code Ann[otated section] 40-30-117 as ground to reopen, and have clearly been raised outside the statute of limitation[s]. . . .” Because the notice of appeal in this case fails to satisfy the requirements for an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117(c), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Doryon Booth, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original four-year sentence in confinement, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his probation and by failing to make adequate findings in support of its decision to revoke his suspended sentence. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Stanford Ray Coleman was resentenced for his third conviction for distributing drugs to small towns in Appalachia. He requested to be resentenced within the recommended Guidelines range. And he was. But he now appeals that sentence on four procedural grounds. Finding no error, we affirm his sentence, and we remand for consideration of a sentencing amendment.