PER CURIAM. In 2024, the Ohio legislature passed a law that banned foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections and from spending money to support or oppose state ballot initiatives. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.121. The plaintiffs here brought this suit, claiming on various grounds that the law violates the constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on the ground that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on one of their First Amendment claims. That injunction barred enforcement of the law against not only lawful permanent residents, but also against any individual who is a “foreign national.” The Ohio Attorney General appealed and moved for a stay of the district court’s injunction. After briefing on the stay motion, a divided panel granted the state’s motion in a published opinion that (including the dissent) ran some 24 pages. See OPAWL v. Yost, 118 F.4th 770 (6th Cir. 2024). In that opinion, the court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the First Amendment did not permit states to ban political expenditures and contributions by lawful permanent residents. See id. at 775–76. The parties and an amicus then filed merits briefing in this preliminary-injunction appeal. We have ourselves now carefully reviewed all the relevant materials, including the relevant cases. For substantially the reasons stated in the stay panel’s majority opinion, two of us conclude that Ohio is likely to prevail on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. See id. at 774–86. And we see little purpose in rehearsing those reasons in what would turn out to be essentially an identical opinion here. The plaintiffs raise several issues in a cross-appeal. They argue, for instance, that the ban on electioneering communications by lawful permanent residents violates the Equal Protection Clause. But that claim is largely derivative of their First Amendment claim—and likely fails for the same reasons. See First Choice Chiropractic v. DeWine, 969 F.3d 675, 684–85 (6th Cir. 2020). Specifically, as the stay panel held, Ohio’s law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. See OPAWL, 118 F.4th at 785. The plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim is likely to fail, therefore, regardless of the degree of scrutiny that we would apply. The plaintiffs otherwise argue that Ohio’s ban on ballot-issue spending (as compared to spending on political candidates) by all foreign nationals violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs further argue that § 3517.121 is void for vagueness. The district court has not yet addressed the vagueness argument; and though it might have addressed the argument about ballot-issue spending, OPAWL v. Yost, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1084–86 (S.D. Ohio 2024), the Ohio Attorney General contends that we should leave these issues to the district court on remand. We agree. We therefore reverse the district court’s order granting the injunction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with that of the majority on the stay panel— given our substantial adherence to that opinion here.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. For years, Kia and Hyundai produced cars that lacked a standard anti-theft device found in most other vehicles. So thieves began to target these cars in large numbers, which led to a nationwide surge in car thefts. In each of these consolidated cases, a teenager stole one of these cars and, while joyriding, injured an innocent driver on the road. Donald Strench suffered multiple fractures and severe injuries to his head. Matthew Moshi ultimately died from the accident. Strench and Moshi’s estate sued Hyundai and Kia, respectively. They alleged that the companies were liable under the Ohio Product Liability Act because they had manufactured cars with design defects that made them especially susceptible to theft, resulting in Strench’s and Moshi’s tragic injuries. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of proximate causation. In doing so, it relied on a line of Ohio cases that address an individual car owner’s liability for injuries arising from their car’s theft. We hold that those cases do not control product liability claims against car manufacturers, and that the design defect claims therefore survive. But we reject some of Strench’s and Moshi’s other claims on alternative grounds. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” What Publicity Can Do, Harper’s Wkly., Dec. 20, 1913, at 10. The Founders, though, recognized the benefits of sometimes keeping window curtains closed. Indeed, secrecy at the Constitutional Convention helped facilitate the forming of our nation. See generally John P. Kaminski, Secrecy and the Constitutional Convention (2005). And the Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized a hard-and-fast constitutional rule requiring public access to all governmental proceedings. McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221, 232 (2013). Here, the Tennessee Judicial Advisory Commission, with no objection from the Tennessee legislature, has kept its meetings closed to the public since 2018. Dan McCaleb, a journalist, claims that the Commission is violating the First Amendment, as applied to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment, by depriving him of access to the proceedings. He sued Michelle Long, the official purportedly responsible for maintaining the Commission’s closed meetings. McCaleb’s single basis for relief is that his request would satisfy the experience-and- logic test recognized in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County, 478 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1986), which we apply to requests for information tied to adjudicatory proceedings. As explained below, the Commission’s meetings are advisory, not adjudicatory, so the test does not govern here. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Long.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of an unfortunate incident in which Melissa Wooden, in the throes of a mental-health crisis, called 911 and asked for police to kill her. Three police officers responded and saw Wooden holding a bat and a pickaxe. One of the officers told Wooden that she would not be harmed. Less than ten minutes after arriving at the scene, that officer tased Wooden and another officer shot her. Michael Chrestman, on Wooden’s behalf, sued the two officers who harmed her and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro Nashville”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted the officers’ motion to dismiss and Metro Nashville’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because the complaint plausibly alleges that the officers violated Wooden’s clearly established rights when they tased and shot her, and because the district court erred in granting Metro Nashville’s motion, we reverse in part and vacate in part.

The Defendant, John Wendell Lewis, appeals from his guilty-pleaded conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39- 17-1307(b)(1)(A) (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant, a Range I offender, contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Marcus Wilson, appeals from the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner, Keenan Alexander, appeals from the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s jury-trial convictions for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of drug paraphernalia, speeding, and failing to maintain financial responsibility and his effective two-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation and 99.7 WTN on Sept. 5 hosted a hosted a debate with four top Republican candidates — State Reps. Lee Reeves, Gino Bulso and Jody Barrett, and Matt Van Epps — who are vying to fill the 7th Congressional District seat vacated by Mark Green in June. The Nashville Banner reports that Bulso, an attorney in Williamson County, said during the debate, “You want us not to simply agree with President Trump on everything. I’m going to do that because I think President Trump is a generational leader unlike we’ve ever seen before.” The Tennessean published photos from the event.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s order denying his request to be provided a new authorized treating physician. The employee expressed dissatisfaction with his authorized physician and requested a new doctor. The employer declined, asserting that the employee has received all the benefits to which he is currently entitled and that the authorized physician placed the employee at maximum medical improvement with no permanent medical impairment. After an expedited hearing, the trial court issued an order declining to order the employer to provide a new panel of physicians but observing that the employee could return to his authorized physician. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order delaying a ban on TikTok for a fourth time. The Hill reports that this extension pushes back the deadline to enforce a law — which requires TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance to divest from the app or face a ban on U.S. networks and app stores — until Dec. 16. An earlier extension was set to expire Wednesday. On Monday, the administration announced it had reached a "framework" deal during trade talks with Chinese officials.