Women incarcerated at the Women’s Therapeutic Residential Center in West Tennessee are suing Tennessee Department of Correction Commissioner (TDOC) Frank Strada for allegedly confiscating tablets that contained their digital property, family photos and messages from loved ones. According to the Nashville Banner, the suit accuses TDOC of promoting and profiting from a program offering the women the ability to purchase music and games on tablets where they also could receive emails and photos from loved ones. After launching the program, the department then allegedly confiscated the devices and replaced them with new tablets from another company. The suit was filed by national civil rights attorneys Thomas B. Harvey and Dami Animashaun, along with Nashville-based Kyle Mothershead with Relentless Advocacy.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The Armed Career Criminal Act requires a court to impose a minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for felons who possess firearms if they have three prior “violent felony” convictions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The statute defines the phrase “violent felony” in part to include an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[.]” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court in this case held that this definition covered three of Mario Delaine’s prior convictions and thus applied the 15-year minimum. Delaine has appealed. His appeal raises complex questions about the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act. To name a few: When deciding whether a state-law offense qualifies as a “violent felony,” must a sentencing court look only to the state-law precedent at the time of a defendant’s conviction, or may it rely on later state-court decisions that clarify the offense’s elements? And can an offense qualify as a violent felony if the defendant intentionally uses force against another person but does not intend for the force to cause an injury? Despite the excellent advocacy of Delaine’s counsel, we disagree with him over the Act’s requirements and the nature of his prior offenses. Because all three of those offenses are violent felonies, we affirm.

Lacy Frank Walls, III, Defendant, was convicted of evading arrest and three counts of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of forty years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court refused to consider all of the issues presented in his motion for new trial. After a review, we find the trial court erred by refusing to consider all the issues presented in the motion for new trial. On remand, the trial court should hold a new hearing on the motion for new trial, at which the trial court should consider all the issues in the motion. The trial court should also enter judgment forms for Counts Four and Five and enter corrected judgment forms in Counts One, Two, and Six, reflecting Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and the proper statute under which Defendant is required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence.

According to WBBJ 7 News, Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivins has issued an order assigning four judges to preside over civil and criminal cases in Madison County General Sessions Court, Division 1, for Judge Mark Patey. The judges are 26th Judicial District Circuit Court Judges Donald Allen, Kyle Atkins and Joseph Howell and Senior Judge Roy Morgan. According to the order, the assignment will run through Aug. 31 and was issued to address the “judge’s reported abdication of his duty to hold regular, prompt dockets and adjudicate cases in a timely matter.” Bivins writes in the order that the situation has caused concern about the constitutional and statutory rights of litigants and strains on local resources.

The American Bar Association’s (ABA) suit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at several law firms is moving forward after a federal judge rejected a Justice Department’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case. According to Bloomberg News, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the ABA plausibly alleged “a realistic threat of sanctions to establish its standing” and that the organization sufficiently argued that executive orders against certain firms and deals with others have chilled free speech. The DOJ has argued that the ABA does not have standing to bring the suit. The case is American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has named nine members — three judges and six practicing attorneys — to the new Office of the Appointed Counsel Commission (OACC). Created under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 56, the commission and Executive Director Joe Byrd are tasked with ensuring effective legal representation by appointed private counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney in criminal defense and child welfare cases. “The Court appreciates the members’ willingness to serve at this early stage,” said Chief Justice Jeff Bivins. “Assisting in establishing the Appointed Counsel Commission will require significant time and commitment.” New members named are 1st Judicial District Criminal Court Judge Lisa Rice, 20th Judicial District Criminal Court Judge Jim Todd, retired Shelby County Juvenile Court Magistrate Judge Terre Fratesi, and attorneys Loretta Cravens and Joshua Hedrick of Knoxville, Lowe Finney of Martin, David Grimmett of Franklin, Mark Messler of Memphis, and Emily Wright of Livingston. Read more in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The TBA’s Young Lawyers Division will host the inaugural YLD Business College: Transactional Law Essentials next week on April 10 in Nashville, offering an in-person program designed as a practical refresher and foundation for new and young attorneys, as well as lawyers seeking to strengthen their transactional practice skills. The program will focus on core concepts, ethical considerations and emerging issues in business law, with sessions covering topics such as closing the deal, business ethics, business formation and hot topics, and will feature faculty including Laura Chastain of the Board of Professional Responsibility, Claire Tuley of Baker Donelson and John Wagster of Eden Firm PLLC. Registration opens at 9 a.m., with programming running from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. All times Central.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from Donna Greenwell Dutton’s lawsuit against the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) for attempting to enforce state judicial ethics rules against her. The JCC suspected that Dutton’s statement to a newspaper during her campaign for reelection ran afoul of three rules in the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct (KCJC). After the JCC sent Dutton a Proposed Agreed Order to discipline her, Dutton sued Jimmy Shaffer, in her official capacity as Executive Secretary of the JCC, as well as R. Michael Sullivan, Jeff S. Taylor, Elizabeth Chandler, Eddy Coleman, Joe E. Ellis, and Janet Lively McCauley, in their official capacities as Members of the JCC. Alleging that the JCC’s attempt to enforce the KCJC violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment, Dutton pled one facial challenge and one as-applied challenge to each of the three rules. The district court granted summary judgment and ordered permanent injunctive relief in favor of Dutton based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), which prohibits judicial candidates from making false statements of material fact. Yet the court rejected Dutton’s as-applied challenges to Rule 1.2, which requires judicial candidates to uphold judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality, and Rule 2.4(B), which prohibits them from allowing personal relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The court also denied Dutton relief based on her facial challenges to all three Rules. We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order. While the district court properly granted Dutton’s motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), it erred in denying her motion based on her as- applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B).

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Guy Collins has thrice moved for early termination of his eight-year term of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The district court denied the first motion despite concluding that further supervision appeared unnecessary to deter Collins or to protect the public. The court denied the second motion in a one-paragraph order emphasizing that Collins had yet to complete at least fifty percent of his supervised-release term, pursuant to the district court’s custom. And the district court denied the third motion, resisting Collins’s argument that it had improperly relied on its fifty-percent custom and reasoning that requiring Collins to complete at least half of his term was necessary for deterrence and for protection of the public. Collins timely appealed the second and third orders. Because the district court abused its discretion in both, we VACATE the decisions of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This is an enforcement proceeding against Americare Healthcare Services, Inc., a third-party provider of home care services, and its owner, Mr. Dilli Adhikari, for failing to compensate their employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime hours worked between October 2018 and October 2021. Under a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor in 2013, third-party employers of home care workers are not permitted to claim either the “Companionship Services Exemption” or the “Live-In Exemption” to the FLSA’s overtime requirements. Americare and Adhikari contend the regulation is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and, thus, that the FLSA’s overtime requirements are not enforceable against them because they are entitled to avail themselves of either statutory exemption. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Department. Americare and Adhikari also seek to challenge a regulation that narrowed the definition of “companionship services” under the FLSA, but the district court found they lacked standing. Because we find the third-party regulation is a valid exercise of the Secretary of Labor’s expressly delegated authority as to both exemptions, and that Americare and Adhikari lack standing to challenge the “companionship services” definition, we AFFIRM.