TBA's Indigent Representation Primer series recently featured two articles that provide basics about Tennessee's system for appointed counsel as well as context for discussions about increased resources for indigent representation. The initial primer article introduces the basics of our state's system and the situations that require counsel be appointed for individuals unable to afford representation. The second primer article highlights background and data about Tennessee's Indigent Representation Program, including how courts determine and assign counsel for indigent defendants and vulnerable individuals. Both items include information about the General Assembly's 2024 increased funding for indigent representation — a step in the right direction, but still leaving a significant gap to fill.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order with respect to the other Defendants.

The Defendant, Yancey Lee Williams II, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically, challenging the element of premeditation; (2) the trial court erred by finding that he was engaged in unlawful activity and thereby omitting the “no duty to retreat” language from the self-defense instruction; (3) the prosecutor made improper and inflammatory comments regarding religion and race during closing arguments; and (4) plain error occurred when the State failed to provide pretrial documentation of a witness’s statement to law enforcement despite an order being in place directing such disclosure. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Tennessee, is there ever a time when a prosecutor would not be allowed to dismiss a case after indictment? Politics aside, the controversy over the United States Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn presents important issues regarding the scope of authority between prosecutors and courts.

The Arts & Business Council of Greater Nashville is hosting a free legal clinic for artists and creatives on Aug. 5 from 6-8 p.m. CDT at the Country Music Association. The clinic offers one-on-one 30-minute consultations with volunteer attorneys for creatives across Tennessee. Volunteer attorneys can expect questions on contracts & licensing, copyright, business formation and nonprofit governance. Email vlpa@abcnashville.org for more information or to volunteer. Representatives from the Legal Aid Society’s Taxpayer Project also will be on-site to answer federal income tax questions. Those interested in legal services should register online by July 31.

The July/August issue of the Tennessee Bar Journal is live online and arriving in mailboxes soon. In this issue's cover story, Joy Boyd Longnecker, Matthew Lybeck and David Raybin highlight the glaring disparities in criminal and civil discovery under Tennessee law. Memphis Law student Brenden King considers how the paralegal role might be redefined by AI. Newly installed TBA President Charlotte Knight Griffin shares her vision for the 2026-2027 bar year in her inaugural President's Perspective column, The Legal Life recaps the TBA's Annual Convention held in Knoxville June 10-13 and Buddy Stockwell says "farewell" in his final column for the Journal. Other columns include Russell Fowler's History's Verdict, Wade Davies' Crime & Punishment and Marlene Eskind Moses and Ansley Owens Tillett's Family Matters.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Stephen and Deborah Gmeiner needed a permit to construct a walking path on their lakeside property in northern Michigan. Keri Kent, an analyst with a Michigan agency, eventually granted this permit on the condition that the Gmeiners agree to “indemnify and hold harmless” Michigan for “all claims or causes of action arising from” the “acts or omissions” that the Gmeiners took in “connection with [the] permit.” Permit, R.1-4, PageID 42. The Gmeiners sued over this indemnification clause, reading it broadly to relieve Michigan of liability even for its own misconduct in a suit they might bring against the State. The Gmeiners claimed that the clause imposed an unconstitutional condition on their ability to obtain the permit because it burdened their First Amendment right to petition the government (by filing a lawsuit). They also claimed that Michigan law did not give Kent the power to impose the indemnification clause. But the district court dismissed these federal and state claims at the pleading stage. We agree with this outcome. As for the federal constitutional claim, the Gmeiners’ theory has several problems. They simply assume that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional- conditions test for the Takings Clause applies to the Petition Clause too. And they misread the scope of the indemnification clause, which requires the Gmeiners to indemnify the State only for their own misconduct. When correctly read, the clause would pass muster even under the unconstitutional-conditions test that the Gmeiners ask us to apply. As for the state-law claim, Michigan’s sovereign immunity bars the Gmeiners from seeking in federal court a declaration that state officials violated state law or an injunction against those officials on state-law grounds. We affirm.

The employee questions the trial court’s denial of her request for additional medical and temporary disability benefits in this interlocutory appeal. The employee injured her back and knee in a fall while working for the employer, and the claim was accepted as compensable. The employer provided medical treatment, and the employee was released at maximum medical improvement with an impairment rating. The employee requested new panels of physicians for her back and knee, which the employer provided; however, the employee contended the panels were not valid. The employee asked the court to order the employer to provide two new panels of physicians and to reinstate temporary disability benefits. After an expedited hearing, the trial court denied both of the employee’s requests and ordered the employee to select physicians from the panels previously provided by the employer. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Anderson County attorney David A. Stuart received a public censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility on July 10. The board determined that Stuart violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.1(a) when he failed to supervise a nonlawyer employee at his firm. After agreeing to represent a client in an immigration matter, Stuart assigned the calendaring of applicable deadlines to the nonlawyer employee. That employee failed to calendar the deadline for filing a pleading and overlooked a notice that the government filed for an order of removal. As a result, no response was filed and an order of removal was entered. Stuart later filed a motion to reopen, which was granted by the tribunal.