The Tennessee Comptroller has rejected Shelby County’s 2026 budget, barring the county from issuing bonds or borrowing money this fiscal year — the first time such a penalty has been imposed on a Tennessee county under a 2021 law. The Daily Memphian reports that Comptroller Jason Mumpower cited repeated deficiencies in budget submissions, including missing details on Memphis-Shelby County Schools funding and fund balances, despite warnings issued last year. The county budgeted $150 million in planned capital projects, including new schools, a replacement trauma hospital, jail improvements and roadwork. Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris and County Commission Chair Shante Avant stated that school and hospital building plans will not be immediately affected by the state’s one-year ban since no borrowing was planned for this fiscal year. Existing bonds issued last spring will cover current construction needs, but the county expects to issue additional bonds in 2027, meaning continued state budget rejections could jeopardize long-term projects. Avant has called for a corrective action plan to address the Tennessee Comptroller’s concerns and restore financial compliance. Harris’ office said projects remain on track, with sufficient resources in place, and pledged to work with the comptroller to resolve the issues. Memphis lawmakers criticized the comptroller's decision as a roadblock, while Mumpower’s office said Shelby County leaders failed to take advantage of opportunities to correct errors before submission.

The State Building Commission in August approved a $4,000 private donation to go toward the construction of the “memorial for unborn children” on the grounds of the state capitol. The monument was first proposed in 2018 and sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sexton, R-Bean Station, and Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown. WKRN reports that Democrats had argued that the monument's construction would have serious implications for abortion and women, and that the memorial wasn’t necessary because there is already one honoring children who have died in Nashville’s Centennial Park.

Out-of-state PACs are pouring millions into Tennessee’s special congressional race in District 7, with most of the money spent attacking Rep. Jody Barrett, R-Dickson, for opposing school vouchers and a 2024 tax rebate plan. The School Freedom Fund, bankrolled solely by billionaire Jeff Yass, has spent over $500,000 against Barrett, though it hasn’t endorsed another candidate. Matt Van Epps, endorsed by retiring Republican Rep. Mark Green, has received more than $500,000 in outside PAC support. Much of that money can be traced to a PAC funded by the parents of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, WPLN reports. Other frontrunners, including Lee Reeves and state Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, have relied heavily on personal loans to their campaigns, while on the Democratic side, Darden Copeland and Rep. Bo Mitchell of Nashville lead fundraising, with state Rep. Vincent Dixie, D-Nashville, receiving some support from an out-of-state PAC. Early voting ends today; the primary election is Oct. 7.

The Justice Department (DOJ) has ordered all 93 U.S. attorney’s offices to prosecute adult sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children (UAC) for crimes such as trafficking, fraud and immigration violations, according to a memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Each district must appoint a coordinator, track cases and seek DOJ approval before declining prosecution, signaling a tougher enforcement push under the Trump administration. Bloomberg Law reports that the move follows Republican criticism of Biden-era policies that loosened vetting requirements, which they say increased risks of exploitation, though advocates argue stricter rules deter family members from stepping forward. The directive reflects Trump’s broader effort to overhaul the UAC program, with expanded vetting, renewed data-sharing between agencies and $300 million in new funding.

State Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, is accusing Attorney General (AG) Jonathan Skrmetti of improperly revising and withdrawing a prior legal opinion, written by former AG Herbert Slatery, to allow Gov. Bill Lee to deploy National Guard troops to Memphis at President Donald Trump’s request. Yarbro argues the move violates both the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions, which prohibit military involvement in policing, and says it undermines the rule of law. Skrmetti defends the change, stating attorney general opinions are not binding and that the office withdraws opinions when it finds the state of the law has changed or the analysis was incorrect. Sen. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, contends the governor has clear authority over the Guard. Yarbro maintains state law authorizes changes or omissions only when the legislature passes new laws or a court makes a conflicting ruling, and warns that ignoring constitutional limits amounts to “tyranny.” Tennessee Lookout has the story.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday dismissed the NCAA's eligibility case against Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, who is playing this season under a preliminary injunction. According to the Associated Press, the judges agreed with the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in a quick ruling returned after hearing oral arguments Sept. 16 in Nashville. Judge Amul R. Thapar noted Pavia won the preliminary injunction before the NCAA hurt its appeal by granting a waiver in December to athletes in his position. The Tennessean also reports on the ruling.

The TBA will host a Court of Appeals Boot Camp on Oct. 8 in Nashville, offering lawyers the opportunity to observe oral arguments in real cases and hear analysis from participating attorneys on preparation and advocacy strategies. The program, designed to strengthen skills in both written and oral appellate advocacy, also will feature a networking lunch for participants. Speakers include Tennessee Court of Appeals Judges Andy Bennett, Frank Clement Jr., Neal McBrayer and Jeffrey Usman. The program will run from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. CDT at the Tennessee Court of Appeals. For more information and to register, visit the TBA website.

Belmont University College of Law hosted its annual Law Review Symposium Sept. 19, highlighting emerging challenges in national security, data privacy, cybersecurity and constitutional law. This year’s theme was “Data, Power and Security: Contemporary Issues in National Security and the Law,” and the event featured sessions on executive orders, AI regulation, non-fungible tokens, vehicle-ramming attacks and cyber insurance. The student-run symposium offered students practical experience in organizing scholarly events while connecting them with practitioners and academics addressing fast-evolving legal and technological issues. “We started planning the symposium in the spring of 2025 ... There was so much valuable information being shared, and it was clear people were fully engaged with the topic and conversation,” said Executive Symposium Editor Kristi Jensen. Symposium presentations and discussions will be published in the second volume of the Belmont Law Review in the spring.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. After a breakout year in 2024, Diego Pavia wanted to continue playing quarterback for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 football season. But National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) eligibility rules barred him from playing. So he sued the NCAA. After he won a preliminary injunction, the NCAA appealed. But in the meantime, the NCAA gave Pavia exactly what he wanted—a waiver that guaranteed he could play for Vanderbilt in 2025. Because that waiver provides Pavia complete relief at the preliminary- injunction stage, we dismiss the NCAA’s appeal as moot.

HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. Daniel Jackson went to trial on a charge of possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with the intent to distribute. At trial, Jackson took the stand and insisted that an officer planted the drugs discovered in his car and near his person. Jackson’s story didn’t stick; the jury convicted. The district court then sentenced Jackson to 97 months’ imprisonment and a term of supervised release. Jackson now challenges two components of his sentence. He first argues that the district court erred by imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on its finding that Jackson committed perjury at trial. Jackson also objects to a supervised-release condition permitting searches of his electronic devices. We affirm.