TBA's Day on the Hill and Big Shrimp Legislative Reception will be held in Nashville next week on March 20. The events give Tennessee lawyers an opportunity to meet with their legislators and talk to them about issues important to the profession, including funding for indigent representation. The TBA Day on the Hill will include a luncheon and meetings with legislators in the afternoon, followed by the annual Big Shrimp reception that night. Sign up by Monday to take part!

A special committee of House and Senate members has unanimously recommended removing Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Melissa Boyd from the bench, the Commercial Appeal reports. The move comes after the state Board of Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Boyd for refusing to undergo counseling after admitting to using marijuana and cocaine. The board referred the case to the General Assembly, which has the sole authority to remove judges from office. Representatives of the board were at the hearing to answer questions. In related news, Boyd has separately pleaded not guilty to charges of witness coercion and harassment.

The state Senate Education Committee approved a bill yesterday that would vacate the board of trustees of the historically Black Tennessee State University (TSU) by June 30 and authorize Gov. Bill Lee to appoint eight of the board’s 10 members. The other two positions would be filled by a student and faculty representative. The move comes after the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recommended a change in leadership, the president stepped down and other reviews found the school was underfunded by more than $2.1 billion over the past 30 years. The board, to no avail, had asked state lawmakers for more time to address outstanding issues and find a new president. The Nashville Scene reports on developments.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has suspended Florida lawyer Joy T. Reid from the practice of law in Tennessee for 60 days. The court reports that Reid applied for comity admission to the Tennessee bar, but that during review of her application for admission, the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners discovered that she appeared to be holding herself out as a currently licensed Tennessee attorney. The Tennessee Board of Law Examiners conducted a show cause hearing during which Reid made misstatements of material fact. She agreed to a conditional guilty plea acknowledging her conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5, 7.1 and 8.4(c).

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett addressed the Civic Learning Week National Forum at The George Washington University earlier this week to discuss the state of relations among the justices in the wake of several high-profile and controversial rulings — including one that rejected state efforts to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The justices united to promote civility even in the midst of disagreements. They said the need for civil debate has never been greater than it is in these polarized times, and that the court, where voices do not get raised in anger, can be a model for the rest of the country. “We do not interrupt one another, and we never raise voices,” Barrett said. The Washington Post has a recap of the event while PBS Newshour has video of the presentation.

1. On page one, added a footnote that becomes the new footnote #1. It states: "The original Court of Appeals opinion in this matter was filed on January 9, 2024. Ms. Hagh and Mr. Manookian filed petitions to rehear. We have reviewed this matter and agree that the January 9, 2024 opinion should be withdrawn. It is hereby withdrawn and replaced by this opinion, which is filed with an order of this Court granting the petitions to rehear regarding the second recusal motion and denying the other requests in the petitions."

2. On page 2, what was originally footnote #1 is now footnote #2. Changed the footnote and it now states: "Mr. Manookian was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in September 2018. Tenn. Sup. Ct. Order, No. M2019-00630-SC-BAR-BP, Order Reinstating Temporary Suspension (filed Oct. 11, 2019). On May 17, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order dissolving the temporary suspension of Mr. Manookian’s law license subject to his ongoing compliance with certain conditions. Id. On October 11, 2019, Mr. Manookian’s suspension from the practice of law was reinstated. Id. On February 16, 2024, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an opinion in Manookian v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, --- S.W.3d ---, No. M2022-00075-SC-R3-BP (Tenn. 2024), disbarring Mr. Manookian from the practice of law in Tennessee."

3. Beginning on page 17, completely replaced the analysis for the section titled "D. Plaintiff's attorneys' second motion to recuse the trial judge." This change goes all the way to the bottom of page 19.

The East Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women (ETLAW) will hold a reception with law students from the University of Tennessee College of Law and Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law on March 19 from 5-7 p.m. EDT. The event will take place at Monkey's Bar, 103 Depot Ave., near the Old City. Tickets are $10 for ETLAW members, $25 for non-members and free for law students. Register and purchase tickets here.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Alison Kareem appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O’Malley. Kareem sued Defendants on the grounds that two state election laws, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3501.35(A)(4) and 3599.20, violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment by prohibiting her from displaying her marked ballot to others. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment because it concluded that Kareem lacked Article III standing. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Michael Robert Quinn (“Defendant”) appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving on a suspended license, and violation of the financial responsibility law, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court should have dismissed the presentment based upon the denial of his right to a preliminary hearing; (2) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle; (3) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from two searches of his cell phone; (4) the failure to make a return on the arrest warrant invalidated the warrant, resulting in a warrantless search and seizure of Defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s pro se request for a continuance of his trial; (6) the trial court erroneously admitted text messages found on the cell phone in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (8) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of twenty-five years with a one hundred percent release eligibility. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case concerns whether a parcel of real property is subject to certain restrictions contained in a previously recorded declaration of restrictive covenants. In the proceedings below, the trial court dismissed a homeowner’s association’s lawsuit which sought to enforce the declaration’s architectural review restrictions against the owners of the property. Upon review, we determine that the declaration did not expressly include the property at issue, nor was the property validly made subject to the restrictions within the declaration. Additionally, we reject the homeowner’s association’s arguments that the property was restricted to the terms of the declaration by way of an implied negative reciprocal easement or by waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.