Walgreens has agreed to pay $300 million to settle allegations by U.S. prosecutors that it illegally filled millions of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances, the U.S. Justice Department said Monday. Under the agreement, the amount will be paid over six years with 4% annual interest, and the company will owe an additional $50 million if it is sold, merged or transferred before Fiscal Year 2032, Reuters reports. Prosecutors alleged Walgreens violated the Controlled Substances Act by ignoring “red flags” and filling unlawful prescriptions. The company said in a regulatory filing that it does not anticipate any major future opioid-related cases. Walgreens joins a number of other entities — drug manufacturers such as Purdue Pharma, Teva and Allergan, pharmacy operators such as Kroger, CVS, Walmart and Food City, marketing firms and consulting firms — that have agreed to pay billions of dollars to resolve multiple lawsuits tied to the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The Tennessee Justice Bus will join the University of Tennessee Extension for its Spring Health Fair and National Healthy Kids Day on April 26, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. CDT at the Dickson County Government Building and the Dickson County YMCA. Attendees will have access to a variety of local and statewide legal information and resources, including the ability to use the Justice Bus’s onboard technology to research legal issues through Help4TN.org and TN.FreeLegalAnswers.org. Get more information about the event.

TBA’s member benefit partner SoFi will offer a free webinar on June 4 at noon CDT to help lawyers better understand the current status of the student loan landscape. Join Brian Walsh, SoFi’s financial planning leader, as he breaks down the latest changes and how SoFi at Work can help. The session also will include a live Q&A to answer any questions from attendees. Register here.

The law firm of Rainey Kizer Reviere & Bell celebrated its 50th anniversary on Monday with a ribbon cutting at its Jackson office. Founded in Jackson in 1975 by Tom Rainey and Jerry Kizer, the firm now employs 50 lawyers and has offices in six cities across Tennessee and Kentucky. WBBJ was on site to record the ceremony and interview the firm's president, Dale Thomas.

The Tennessee Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission is partnering with the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services, the Hard Bargain Association and Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands to hold a wills clinic in Williamson County. The clinic is set for May 3 from 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. CDT at Mercy's Community Clinic, 143 SE Parkway Ct., Franklin 37064. Attorneys and at least one notary are needed, and law students are welcome to participate. Click here to view an informational flyer or register here to help.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found clear and convincing evidence to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home and (2) the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We now affirm.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court in Bricker and AFFIRM the judgments in McHenry and Orta. This appeal concerns three federal prisoners serving lengthy sentences. Invoking the compassionate-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which allows a court to reduce a final prison sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” each prisoner sought release based on a recently enacted “policy statement,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). In that statement, the Sentencing Commission announced that a nonretroactive change in the law can present an “extraordinary and compelling” reason warranting a sentence reduction if (1) a prisoner has served at least 10 years (2) of “an unusually long sentence,” (3) there is a “gross disparity” between the actual sentence being served and a hypothetical sentence that would apply under the current law if any nonretroactive changes in the law since the original sentencing were given retroactive effect, and (4) the sentencing court has fully considered “the defendant’s individualized circumstances.”1 To cut to the heart of this, because some recent revisions to federal sentencing law are not retroactive, old inmates are serving prison sentences that are much longer than the sentences of new inmates who committed the exact same crimes. Recognizing the unfairness, the Commission decided that the disparity was a good reason to grant these old-timers early release, or was at least a factor worth considering when deciding whether an individual old-timer had an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for early release. That is understandable and even laudable. The question is whether the Commission has the authority to do that under the law, particularly the Constitution. To be specific, the questions in this appeal concern the separation of powers, specifically the Commission’s power to overrule a Circuit Court’s interpretation of a statute or to promulgate a policy statement that contradicts other federal statutes. The Sentencing Commission “is a peculiar institution”—a judicial-branch agency with “quasi-legislative” power—about which the Supreme Court has acknowledged that its “unique composition and responsibilities . . . give rise to serious concerns about a disruption of the appropriate balance of governmental power among the coordinate Branches.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 383-85 (1989). Based on the analysis that follows, we conclude that the Commission overstepped its authority and issued a policy statement that is plainly unreasonable under the statute and in conflict with the separation of powers. We therefore hold that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid.

Petitioner, Johnny Tate, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Kimberly M. Smart, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of reckless aggravated assault, for which she received a sentence of three years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence of awitness's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, (2) the trial court erred ni admitting a body camera recording depicting the victim shortly after she was stabbed, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by attempting to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing and rebuttal arguments. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Diversity Leadership Institute (DLI) Class of 2025 held its graduation at the TBA's 2025 Annual Convention in Franklin. Class members were Samantha McCrory and Mary Martha Willson of Belmont University College of Law; Rebekah Ballard, Shana Singleton and Sharon Strahan of Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law; Divine Dent of the University of Memphis Cecil C Humphreys School of Law; Ilse Chavez Bloss of Nashville School of Law; and Shery Girgis and Fady Megaly of Vanderbilt Law School. In addition to attending the convention, they attended the TBA Young Lawyers Division winter meeting and volunteered at the Tennessee State High School Mock Trial competition as their service project. See photos from their graduation. DLI is a six-month leadership and mentoring program for Tennessee law students in their second, third or fourth years of study. Learn more about the program on the YLD website.