The TBA Environmental Law Section has announced Layton Coker, a student at the University of Tennessee (UT) Winston College of Law, as the winner of its Hastings Writing Competition for 2025. The judges felt that Coker’s essay, Paradise Lost: Environmental Justice Gaps in TVA’s Clean Energy Transition, was both timely and captured the spirit of the competition.

This year’s decision was a difficult one, with recent Nashville School of Law graduate Emily Crawford’s essay, Jarkesy, Juries and Justice: The Future of EPA Civil Penalties, selected as a close runner-up. Rounding out the competition were exceptional entries by UT Winston College of Law student Logan Hawkins and University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law student Owen King, who submitted papers on the Environmental Footprint of the xAI Facility in Memphis and Tennessee’s Regulatory Opportunities and the Clean Water Act, respectively.

The competition, founded in memory of one of the Environmental Law Section's founding members, Jon E. Hastings, is a juried competition for the best legal writing on a topic of Tennessee or federal environmental law. TBA's Environmental Law Section executive council would like to thank all participants for their thoughtful and impressive entries.

Editor's Note: The essays are shared as submitted.

Save the date for the annual Federal Practice Forum, which will take place virtually on July 15 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT. Speakers and topics will be announced soon. Stay tuned here for more information.

The 2025 William M. Leech Jr. Public Service Award will be presented to 21st Judicial District Circuit Court Judge and Chancellor David Veile at the TBA’s Annual Convention by the Fellows of the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) Young Lawyers Division (YLD). Named for former Attorney General William M. Leech Jr., the award is given each year to a Tennessee lawyer who has been of outstanding service to the profession, the legal system and their community. In announcing the award, Fellows President and Jackson lawyer Michelle Greenway Sellers said, "Judge Veile truly exemplifies the values embodied in the Leech Award. He is a past president of the TBA YLD, a TBA Board of Governors member, an extremely supportive TBA YLD volunteer and a devoted community leader. Judge Veile generously gives of his time as a mentor to young lawyers, speaks at legal and community events, and volunteers at TBA YLD events such as the TBA YLD Mock Trial competition. He has spent his entire career giving back to the Tennessee legal community and to the Middle Tennessee communities he serves. The Fellows are honored to award Judge David Veile the 2025 TBA YLD Fellows William M. Leech Jr. Public Service Award." Veile was elected circuit court judge and chancellor in Williamson County's 21st Judicial District in 2024. He previously practiced criminal defense law in Franklin. The award will be presented on June 13 at the Lawyers Luncheon. Read more about Veile's selection in the TBA's press release.

This appeal involves a commercial lease of property operated as a convenience store in Memphis. The lease provided that it was to be construed and enforced in accordance with Georgia law. The lease was for an initial term of ten years, but it provided that the tenant had the option to renew the lease for two additional terms of five years commencing at the expiration of the initial term. Near the end of the initial ten-year term, the landlord sent a notice of nonrenewal to the tenant, notifying the tenant that the lease was scheduled to expire because the tenant had failed to timely exercise the option to renew it. One week later, the tenant sent the landlord written notice of its intent to exercise the option to extend the lease for an additional five years. The tenant’s letter asserted that the provision of the lease regarding when notice was to be provided “[did] not make any sense” and informed the landlord that the tenant was thereby exercising the option. The landlord filed this lawsuit, asking the trial court to hold that the lease had expired by its terms when the tenant did not timely exercise the option to extend it, and therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession of the property and a judgment for rent at the holdover rate provided in the lease. The tenant filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that the lease was ambiguous but that the only reasonable interpretation of the lease was that notice of intent to exercise the option was due ninety days before the end of the initial term. Because the tenant failed to provide notice by that date, the trial court concluded that the initial term of the lease expired, the landlord was entitled to possession, and the tenant was liable for holdover rent and attorney fees. The tenant appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

In granting appellee’s motion to amend her petition over appellant’s objection, the trial court did not consider any of the factors relevant to a trial court’s determination of whether to grant a motion to amend. In the absence of any explanation in the trial court’s order concerning the basis for its decision, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to amend. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order granting appellee leave to amend her petition and pretermit the remaining issues on appeal.

The Estes Kefauver Federal Building and Annex in downtown Nashville has been approved for sale by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after a report recommended closure of the aging office building. The Tennessean reports that the building is one of 11 federal properties across the U.S. recommended for closure by the Public Buildings Reform Board. The building currently houses the Nashville offices of the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Veterans Affairs, though the building is only about 66% leased. The Annex is about 77% leased. The building served as Nashville's federal courthouse until the Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse opened in 2022 on Church Street.

COLE, Circuit Judge. An administrative law judge denied Jaime Norris’s application for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income after finding that Norris could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The district court agreed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the decision. We affirm.

Chattanooga attorney Patrick Bryant Hawley reached a plea deal in connection with a sex crimes case involving a 14-year-old Pennsylvania girl and is expected to register as a sex offender, reports the Chattanooga Times Free Press. The charge carries a minimum sentence of 15 years and up to 30 years in prison. Prosecutors dismissed six other criminal counts involving animal crushing, coercion, enticement and the receipt, possession and distribution of child pornography. Hawley was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in November 2024.

The petitioner, Leavy L. Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A three-judge panel was convened in this case to determine the constitutionality of 2023 Tennessee Public Chapter 21. While the case was pending, the trial court temporarily stayed implementation of subsection 1(b) of the legislation, the result of which was that the deadlines contained therein were rendered moot. In considering competing summary judgment motions, the trial court unanimously ruled that subsection 1(a) of the act was not also moot. In a divided decision, however, the trial court concluded that the legislation violated two provisions of the Tennessee Constitution: the home rule amendment and a clause exempting metropolitan governments from a twenty-five-member cap on county legislative bodies. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that subsection 1(a) is not moot. We reverse, however, its conclusion that the statute is barred by either constitutional provision at issue.