Early voting in the 2026 primary for state judicial offices and applicable county offices began yesterday, according to several news sources. The early voting period will run through the end of month. The last day to request absentee ballots is April 25. Election day is May 5. Track information unique to your area from the Tennessee Secretary of State’ office. Find contact information for your county election commission for more details.

TBA's solo health plan just got a major upgrade. Effective now, the solo plan has transitioned from Cigna to Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. The Anthem BlueCard PPO is a nationwide network offering expanded flexibility and services based on market demand and member feedback. The solo plan features monthly enrollment with four options — so if you are a solo practitioner, we encourage you to explore your options and enroll today. This upgrade also aligns TBA's solo plan with our group health insurance program, which offers BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee and open for enrollment each fall.

In addition to compelling CLE, social events and networking opportunities, the 2026 TBA Annual Convention will include meetings of TBA's governing bodies. On Wednesday, the House of Delegates will meet in the afternoon. On Thursday, the TBA Access to Justice Committee will meet to make plans for the upcoming bar year. On Friday, the TBA Board of Governors and its executive committee will meet for its summer meeting, while the Tennessee Legal Community Foundation (TLCF) and TBA Member Insurance Solutions (TBAMS) will hold their respective board meetings. Also on Friday, the Young Lawyers Division will hold its annual membership meeting and Long Range Planning Committee meeting. Governance activities will wrap up with past YLD presidents participating in a gavel pass and champagne toast to honor incoming president Jennifer Sneed-Perry. On Saturday, the YLD Board's executive committee will meet, while all board members will participate in committee breakouts and the summer board meeting. Check out the full convention schedule.

The TBA Access to Justice Committee is accepting nominations for the 2026 Public Service Awards through tomorrow. The annual awards recognize outstanding commitment to access to justice in three categories: work performed by an attorney employed by an organization primarily involved in providing legal representation to the indigent, pro bono work performed by a private or corporate attorney, and a strong commitment to pro bono service by a Tennessee law student or recent graduate. Awards will be presented during the TBA Annual Convention in June. Submit nominations by April 17 on the TBA website.

The Shelby County Board of Commissioners on Monday voted 9-0-1 to begin the process of finding experts to study options for a new or renovated county jail and justice center, directing staff to draft a request for qualifications by June 15. The Daily Memphian reports that the process is expected to extend well beyond the current administration, as a new mayor and commission will take office in September, and the project — estimated to cost over $1 billion — could take a decade to complete. The commission also shuffled funds within the Sheriff's Office budget, moving money originally earmarked for jail shower repairs toward a shooting range renovation and backup generators, while approving an emergency fence installation at a jail annex in Millington.

Hamilton County Criminal Court Clerk Vince Dean introduced two new QR codes to streamline common courthouse processes. The first allows defendants with dismissed traffic citations to scan a code, complete expungement paperwork on their own time, and receive electronic notification when the process is complete — eliminating the need to wait in line. The second code guides defendants through the driver's license reinstatement process, also allowing paperwork to be filled out and submitted electronically at their convenience. Chattanoogan.com has the story.

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law (LMU Law) recently announced that Brent Jones will join the faculty as a visiting assistant professor of law. Jones has served as an adjunct professor of trial advocacy at LMU Law since 2019. He most recently served as an assistant United States attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, where he prosecuted federal cases involving drug trafficking, firearms offenses and money laundering. Jones currently serves in the U.S. Air Force Reserve with the Office of Special Trial Counsel. Jones earned his law degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. Read more in a press release from LMU Law.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments April 7 and 8 at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Judges John W. Campbell, Camille R. McMullen and Robert W. Wedemeyer sat for the court. “This year marks 50 years since my graduation from the Law School, and it was an honor to be back and to talk to students, faculty, and Dean Jim Strickland. Judge Campbell and I are both Memphis Law grads and we shared some of our law school memories with the students,” Wedemeyer said after the proceedings. The law school hosted the oral argument for the court while the Jackson courthouse undergoes renovations. The change of venue provided a unique opportunity for law students to observe the appeals process and ask questions of both the attorneys and the judges. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) or watch the arguments on the AOC's Youtube channel.

Question 1 and 2: When a reduction in teaching positions becomes necessary within a Local Education Agency (LEA), what statutory rights are afforded to tenured teachers? Does the most current version of the statute afford any protections to non-tenured teachers?

Opinions 1 and 2: Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-511(b), which sets forth procedures and rights when a reduction in force (RIF) becomes necessary, makes no distinction for tenured or non-tenured teachers; the same protections are afforded to both. That statute gives teachers the following statutory protections: (1) a dismissal due to a reduction in force is tied to level of effectiveness determined by performance evaluations under Tenn. Code Ann. 49-1-302; (2) the teacher must receive written notice of dismissal with full explanation of circumstances and conditions making dismissal necessary; and (3) certain teachers are placed on a reemployment list based on their effectiveness ratings. It should be noted that tenured teachers may be dismissed only by the LEA. The authority to dismiss tenured teachers has not been delegated by statute to the director of schools. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE); see Kelley v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 3d 842, 853 (W.D. Tenn. 2016).

Question 3: What are the key differences between the 2012 and 2014 versions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511?

Opinion 3: Which statutory differences are most important likely depends on the reader. Therefore, we are providing a full comparison of the two versions to the requester.

Question 4: In the event of a Reduction in Force (RIF), may non-tenured teachers be displaced by tenured teachers?

Opinion 4: Potentially yes. The LEA is empowered to dismiss teachers and non-licensed employees based on their “level of effectiveness, ” which may result in non-tenured teachers being displaced by tenured teachers in a RIF situation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1).

Question 5: Regarding Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(4)(A), (B), what is the statutory interpretation of the term “preferred list” for employment? Since “preferred” is not explicitly defined in the Tennessee Code, does it take on its ordinary and natural meaning?

Opinion 5: The phrases “the preferred list for employment” and “list for reemployment” appear in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) and (4) and are synonymous. To construe a statute, “we must decide ‘how a reasonable reader, fully competent in the language, would have understood the text at the time it was issued.’” State v. Deberry, 651 S.W.3d 918, 924 (2022) (quoting ANTONIN SCALIA & BRIAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 33 (2012)). And we must give statutory words their “natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear and in light of the statute’s general purpose.” Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 827 (Tenn. 2015) (cleaned up). Subsection (b)(3) refers to the “list for reemployment” on which certain teachers must be placed when dismissed due to a reduction of force. Subsection (b)(4) then refers to the terms of the employee’s “right to remain on the preferred list.” These two consecutive subsections plainly contemplate the same list. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has construed the term “preferred list” on multiple occasions but only as to earlier versions of the statute. See Lee v. Franklin Special Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 237 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Effective July 1, 2014, subsection (b)(3) was amended to remove the phrase “in the first vacancy the teacher is qualified by training and experience to fill” after “list for reemployment.” Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) (2012) with § 49-5-511(b)(3) (2014). This amendment changed the fundamental purpose of the list and thus the interpretation of “preferred” in subsection (b)(4). Cases like Lee therefore have limited application to the interpretative task at hand. Subsection(b)(3) requires that “[a] teacher rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302” and dismissed due to a reduction in force, be placed on a list for reemployment. Subsection (b)(4) then requires that the teacher remain on the list until “accepting a bona fide offer for reemployment for a comparable position within the LEA” or “rejects four (4) bona fide offers for reemployment for comparable positions within the LEA.” The phrase “preferred list” describes the “list for reemployment,” and permits teachers to remain on the list until certain, enumerated conditions are met. Id. No distinction is made between tenured and non-tenured teachers. Nor can rank or order be attributed to the way teachers are selected from the list for comparable positions within the LEA for offers of reemployment. The use of the undefined word “preferred” to describe the list of teachers in § 49-5- 511(b)(4) indicates that teachers who receive the highest ratings on their evaluations under § 49- 1-302 are to be considered more favorably over less effective teachers who are rated lower based on the same evaluations. See Davis v. Reilly, 683 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tenn. 2024) (“When the statute does not define a term, we may look to authoritative dictionaries”); PREFERRED, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (“Possessing or accorded a priority or privilege; favored”). Thus, the terms “list for reemployment” and “preferred list for employment” indicate that the teachers appear on this list because of their level of performance and should be favored by the LEA over less effective teachers. Based on the foregoing analysis, the phrases “the preferred list for employment” and “list for reemployment” mean a list of teachers “rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302,” regardless of tenure status, who should be considered for employment by the LEA over other candidates when filling comparable positions within the LEA. The preference given to employees on the “preferred list” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) is not absolute, however, as that subsection preserves a director of schools’ broad discretion in determining how to fill vacancies, and “a principal may refuse to accept the placement or transfer of a teacher by the director of schools to the principal’s school.”

Questions 6 and 7: Is it a statutory requirement that teachers be placed on the preferred list for employment at the time of their dismissal? Are LEAs obligated under the statute to include non-tenured teachers on the preferred list for employment?

Opinions 6 and 7: If certain conditions are met, yes. A teacher has a right to be included on the preferred list for employment only if “it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions or nonlicensed positions in the system because of a decrease in enrollment or for other good reasons” and that teacher is “rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49- 1-302” and “has been dismissed because of abolition of a position.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5- 511(b)(3).

Question 8: Do tenured teachers listed on the preferred list have statutory priority or preferential rights to reemployment over nontenured teachers, including new hires, teachers on transitional licenses or waivers, or individuals employed without a valid teaching license?

Opinion 8: No. Section 49-5-511 does not distinguish between tenured and nontenured teachers.

Question 9: Can tenured teachers be dismissed prior to the conclusion of the academic year as a result of a Reduction in Force?

Opinion 9: Yes. The board is empowered to dismiss teachers—tenured or otherwise—“[w]hen it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions” due to an enrollment decrease or other good reasons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1). The statute does not address when the reduction in force occurs.

Question 10: Is the Director of Schools required to assess the competence, capability, and suitability of a teacher who has been placed on the preferred list for employment?

Opinion 10: No. But Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) preserves the director of schools’ “power to determine the filling of [a] vacancy on the basis of the director of schools’ evaluation of the teacher’s competence, compatibility, and suitability . . . in light of the best interest of the students in the school where the vacancy exists.” In other words, the director of schools has the power to assess competence, capability, and suitability of a teacher but has no requirement to.

Question 11: Is the evaluation of a teacher’s competence, capability, and suitability by the Director of Schools distinct from the performance evaluation conducted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1- 302?

Opinion 11: Yes. The first sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) refers to the § 49-1-302 evaluation and requires that teachers rated in the three highest categories be placed on a list for reemployment. Sentence two states, “Nothing in this subsection (b) shall be construed to deprive the director of schools of the power to determine the filling of such vacancy on the basis of the director of schools' evaluation of the teacher's competence, compatibility, and suitability to properly discharge the duties required for the vacant position considered in the light of the best interest of the students in the school where the vacancy exists.” The second sentence recognizes 4 the director of schools’ ability to exercise independent judgment to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for an open position apart from the § 49-1-302 evaluation.

Question 1: Does the term “elementary school students” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 include students in grades K-5 when those grades are housed within the same building, even if the building also hosts higher grade levels such as in a K-8 school?

Opinion 1: It depends. Although Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 does not define what constitutes an elementary school student for purposes of its substantive requirements, we think a court facing this issue would likely rely on the definitional framework within Tenn. Code. Ann. § 49-6-301. Under that statute, “elementary schools” serve “any combination of kindergarten through grade six,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-301(a), whereas “middle schools” are “designed to serve grades five through eight (5-8) only, or any combination of grades five through eight.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-301(b). When applying these definitional concepts to the context of a K-8 school, we think students in grades K-4 would clearly be considered elementary school students, whereas the classification of fifth-grade students would depend on how the local school board classified them. Thus, although fifth-grade students in a K-8 school might be considered elementary school students for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021 in certain situations, we do not think that conclusion is always mandated absent further direction from the General Assembly.

Question 2: For purposes of compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021, how should “elementary school” be defined or determined?

Opinion 2: See response to Question 1.

Question 3: With respect to the physical-activity requirements for elementary school students in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1021, may a school withhold unstructured recess as punishment or replace it with a disciplinary walking activity?

Opinion 3: No.