Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles, who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, held a press conference on Memorial Day to announce that two congressional committees will investigate Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s response to recent immigration raids in the city. “The Homeland Security and the Judiciary committees will be conducting an investigation into the mayor of Nashville, his conduct and whether or not federal dollars have been used in criminal enterprise,” Ogles said. The Nashville Banner reports that while taking questions from the media, Ogles stated that he believed only citizens are entitled to due process and dismissed a question about raids causing fear in Nashville’s Latino community. About 100 protesters disrupted the event, which was held in the otherwise closed state capitol building, by banging on windows, blowing an air horn and chanting opposition to Ogles and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., on Friday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, ruling it an unconstitutional abuse of the president’s power, according to Bloomberg News. The firm sued the administration on March 28 in response to a March 25 executive order that sanctioned the firm for its pro bono work and ties to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Bates initially imposed a temporary halt on the order. In Friday's ruling, he said, “This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.” In a second case,  U.S. District Judge Richard Leon today ruled in favor of WilmerHale’s request to strike down a similar executive order targeting it from March 27. Leon also found that order unconstitutional and granted summary judgement to the firm in lieu of proceeding to a full trial.

Knox County Criminal Court Judge Steve Sword on May 21 dismissed the attempted murder convictions against Ahmad Gatlin, who had been sentenced to 31 years in prison when he was a teenager. Now 20, Gatlin will be granted a new trial due to recently discovered cell phone data that corroborates his claim that he was across town when the crime was committed. Knox News reports that Gatlin was convicted in 2023 after police and prosecutors argued he was in a car when shots were fired into another car near Austin-East Magnet High School in 2021. Knoxville defense attorney Stephen Ross Johnson helped Gatlin's defense team with the challenge and says he is now formally joining the team to represent Gatlin pro bono should the state seek a new trial. According to WBIR, law students from the Wrongful Convictions Clinic at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law also joined the defense team. Director of Clinical Programs and Associate Professor of Law Joy Radice said, “Lawyers representing the poor whose life or liberty are at stake in a criminal case are overworked, chronically underfunded, and often unable to research and obtain critical and effective expert assistance to meet the awesome power of the state or federal government. I am honored that the [clinic] could be a part of helping to fill that gap in Ahmad’s case, as [it] has for over 75 years for so many others."

The reporting staff of the Nashville Banner will receive the Tennessee Bar Association’s 2025 Fourth Estate Award for its reporting last year on the Nashville criminal court system. The award will be presented at the 2025 Lawyers Luncheon set for June 13 as part of the TBA’s Annual Convention in Franklin. Throughout 2024, the Nashville Banner published a series of stories designed to bring transparency and accountability to the Davidson County Criminal Court. Among the issues covered was the court’s decision to remove computers that previously had provided public access to court records, and subsequent changes in the process of how to access those records. In announcing the award, TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr. said, “Nashville Banner news staff demonstrated tenacious and courageous reporting last year as they worked to bring visibility to issues impacting the operations of the Nashville criminal court system. We thank them and honor them for that important contribution.” Read more in the TBA’s press release.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) recently partnered with Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands for a successful expungement clinic. The Murfreesboro clinic served 20 clients and expunged 132 charges. Special thanks to Music City (TN) Chapter of the Links Inc for donating the food and TBA YLD District Representatives Morgan Hanna for coordinating the event and Savannah Quintero for her assistance in explaining expungements to the volunteers and clients. See a photo from the event.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Jermaine Kimbrough pleaded guilty in 2022 to four criminal offenses that involved carjacking and firearms. At sentencing, the district court determined that Kimbrough had committed three prior violent felonies “on occasions different from one another,” which made him subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The Supreme Court subsequently held in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 835 (2024), that error occurs when a judge, instead of a jury, makes the “occasions” decision. We review that decision to determine if the error was harmless. See United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 629–31 (6th Cir. 2024). Because the error was not harmless in the present case, we VACATE Kimbrough’s sentence on Counts One, Two, and Four and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Trump administration will allow the sale of forced-reset triggers, a gun accessory that enables semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly, following a settlement announced Friday by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). According to News Channel 5, the agreement resolves multiple lawsuits and marks a reversal of the federal ban on the devices, which the government had previously classified as illegal machine gun conversion tools. As part of the settlement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) must return seized or voluntarily surrendered triggers. The deal was between the DOJ and Rare Breed Triggers who argued that the ATF was wrong in its classification of forced-reset triggers, and ignored demands to stop selling the triggers before being sued by the Biden administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the decision affirms that “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” Gun control advocates said the settlement would worsen gun violence.

Defendant, Valerie Garrett, was convicted following a bench trial of driving under the influence (“DUI”), third offense, and failure to maintain lane of travel. Defendant claims that the deputy who arrested her lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s award of damages to the plaintiff after a bench trial in an auto accident case. The trial court declined to award the plaintiff all of the damages she sought because it concluded that her most significant injury, a torn rotator cuff, was not caused by the auto accident at issue. The plaintiff then filed a motion to recuse and to set aside the judgment due to a friendship between the trial judge’s son and counsel for the defendant, but the trial court denied the motion. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The main issues in this post-divorce appeal concern the trial court’s rulings on the parties’ requests for attorney’s fees. In addition to the post-divorce proceedings, the husband filed a declaratory judgment petition to determine the amount he owed the wife under the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”). The husband and the wife then engaged in protracted litigation to determine the amount owed. The husband later amended the declaratory judgment petition to include a request to modify alimony. The parties resolved the declaratory judgment petition by providing the trial court with an amount upon which they agreed. The husband then voluntarily nonsuited the petition to modify alimony. Both parties sought an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the MDA. The trial court determined that the husband was the successful party in the declaratory judgment action and that there was no successful party in the request to modify alimony. The court declined to award either party attorney’s fees. The wife appealed, asserting that she was the successful party in both actions and that the court should have awarded her attorney’s fees to her. The wife also challenged discovery sanctions entered against her. First, we determine that the declaratory judgment action did not fall under the fee provision of the parties’ MDA. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding the husband to be the successful party in that action; we affirm the portion of the order declining to award either party attorney’s fees. Next, based upon a recent decision of our Supreme Court, we determine that the wife was the successful party in the petition to modify alimony and reverse the trial court’s decision to the contrary. We affirm the imposition of discovery sanctions.