The University of Tennessee (UT), Knoxville College of Law has been renamed the Frank Winston College of Law following approval by the UT Board of Trustees. The recognition honors Frank Winston, an alumnus of the college and former Tennessee lawmaker who served as counsel to Carol Martin “Bill” Gatton and supported numerous initiatives, including The Bill Gatton Foundation, where he also served as a trustee. The foundation’s $32.5 million gift establishes the Frank Winston Public Interest Law Fellows and the Frank Winston Business Law Fellows. These fellowships will award full scholarships covering three years of studies plus a generous stipend, paid summer work experience, and numerous enriching educational and professional activities. The gift also introduces Frank Winston Law Grants. These three-year scholarships will provide $1,000 annually to at least 50 students in each class to provide additional support for costs associated with law school. “UT has produced some of the brightest legal minds in our state and our country for well over a century. We are proud to have the Winston College of Law bear the name of one of our most distinguished alumni and look forward to the incredible impact a gift of this magnitude will have on our students for generations to come,” said UT Chancellor Donde Plowman. Read a news release from the school.

The TBA YLD will host its second Exploration CLE at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Spencer on May 30. Attendees will earn three hours of CLE credit while enjoying the natural beauty of one of Tennessee’s state parks. The program includes a ranger-led hike and lunch, offering a unique opportunity to blend professional development with outdoor exploration. Registration begins at 9 a.m. CDT with sessions running from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. For more information and to register, visit the TBA website.

The special TBA group rate for the 2025 Annual Convention in Nashville has been extended through May 21 at 5 p.m. CDT. Make your reservation now at the Franklin Marriott Cool Springs to take advantage of this exclusive rate. This year’s convention, set for June 11–14, features engaging programming, valuable networking opportunities and memorable social events. Don’t miss out — book your room today!

This article is a brief update on federal labor law. There’s a problem, though. It is impossible to write a labor law update in this day and time. Really. I’ll give you an example to illustrate. When I started writing this article, there was, effectively, no National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). That’s a big deal. The National Labor Relations Act (the Act) grants exclusive jurisdiction over representation proceedings, i.e., union elections, and unfair labor practice claims — the key statutory rights granted employees by the Act – to a federal agency, the NLRB.[1] Since 1947, the NLRB has been made up of five members, each nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve for a defined term of five years each. And since that time, it has been a bipartisan body, with three members from the president’s party and two members from the opposing political party. That tradition has been continued by successive administrations decade after decade in recognition of the foundational principle of American labor law, as designed by the Act – compromise.[2] Indeed, Congress created the statutory labor law framework to force employers and employees to sit down together and hash out their respective problems in contract negotiations and grievance proceedings, believing that process would lessen workplace strife and strengthen American business.

The bipartisan board is an outgrowth of that spirit of compromise. The board acts on a quorum of three members. On the eve of the Biden Presidency, there was one open minority seat on the board. During the last week of legislative session in December 2024, board member Lauren McFerran’s confirmation for a successive term failed by one vote in the Senate, leaving the NLRB with only three members at the start of the Trump presidency: one Republican, Marvin Kaplan, and two Democrats, David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox. One of Trump’s first acts in office was to fire Wilcox, even though her term does not expire until August 2028, leaving the board with only two members. And, without a quorum, the board was unable to act.[3] In many ways, the practice of labor law came to a screeching halt.

On March 6, however, a federal court ordered Wilcox’s immediate reinstatement.[4] With three sitting members again, the NLRB is back in business. At least for now. But the larger questions raised by Wilcox’s removal remain. What is labor law without a board? What is the Act without a forum for enforcement? These are existential questions for the practice. A "tree-falls-in-the-forest" type of question for labor rights. We may not hear the sound of the board’s fall, but there will certainly be an impact.

Politically motivated firings of NLRB members also put at risk the board’s long history of bipartisanship. And the end of bipartisanship will put at risk the very spirit of compromise on which labor law is based. Politicization undermines reasoned decision-making — a universal truism. While the board may have a long tradition of bipartisanship, the agency itself is a political entity. The NLRB’s adjudicative case load is driven, in large part, by the general counsel, who is a political appointee. General counsel tend to come into office with a very pro-union or pro-management agenda, steering cases to the board that will create a body of case law building on that agenda. In January, President Trump fired then-General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Abruzzo had set an aggressively pro-worker agenda during her term, raising issues before the board — like, for example, the validity of non-compete agreements under the Act — that were outside the bread-and-butter issues litigated before the board. The new acting general counsel, William Cowen, recently appointed by President Trump, will presumably set a pro-employer agenda over the next four years. He began, on Feb. 14, by rescinding many of Abruzzo’s memoranda, which serve as guidance to field offices, on various issues. The inherent political influence of the general counsel makes the bipartisanship of the NLRB itself even more critical to the agency’s success.

The current attacks on the board, however, extend beyond attacks on its individual members. Winding their way through the NLRB and the federal courts are a number of challenges to the board’s ability to award monetary remedies for unfair labor practices in light of the Supreme Court’s Jarkesy decision.[5] But, without monetary remedies, the board cannot fulfill its statutory mandate “to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without backpay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act,” to remedy unfair labor practices committed by employers.[6] With labor rights on the chopping block, the real question is whether we, as a society, continue to value compromise in the workplace.

Karla Campbell practices employment law, in particular ERISA, and traditional labor law at Stranch Jennings & Garvey in Nashville. She is a long-time member of the AFL-CIO’s Union Lawyers’ Alliance and a frequent speaker on labor law topics. Before attending law school, Campbell served in the U.S. Peace Corps in Ecuador.

[1] 29 U.S.C. §§ 159(c), 160(a).
[2] See, e.g., James A. Gross, The Reshaping of the National Labor Relations Board: National Labor Policy in Transition, 1937-1947, at 195-96, 225-39 (1981) (describing 3-2 bipartisan tradition).
[3] In New Process Steel, L.P. v. N.L.R.B., the Supreme Court held that the board could not act with only two members.  560 U.S. 674 (2010).
[4] Wilcox v. Trump et al., No. 25-cv-334, 2025 WL 720887 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2025).
[5] Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024).
[6] 29 U.S.C. § 160(c).

Members of the TBA's 2025 Leadership Law (TBALL) class made their way to Columbia last month for a session focused on service and effective communication. Participants heard from Columbia Mayor Chaz Molder, who discussed running for office as a lawyer, and Lawrenceburg lawyer Ryan Durham who provided a session on being a good advocate and overcoming disability. Nashville lawyer Donald Capparella and Tennessee Shakespeare Company’s Denice Hicks provided an interactive class on public speaking, with former Channel 5 Nashville news reporter and current Sherrard Roe member Amy Rao Mohan wrapping up the day with a session on media relations. View photos from the event.

ALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The government charged Malgum Whiteside, Jr. with being a felon in possession of firearms. The firearms were uncovered during a search of his residence while officers looked for evidence related to his stalking charges. He moved to suppress the firearms on the grounds that the warrant was invalid, and no warrant exception applied. The district court denied the motion. So Whiteside pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge the motion-to-suppress ruling. He now appeals that ruling, and we affirm.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Freddie Knipp, Jr., sold methamphetamine on two occasions to a friend. He also bought a gun for that same friend, knowing he was a felon. For this, Knipp was convicted of two counts of distributing a controlled substance and one count of knowingly selling or disposing of a firearm to a felon. The district court sentenced him to 138 months’ imprisonment. Knipp appeals his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

The petitioner, Donald James Robinson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Haywood County jury convicted the Defendant, Tondre Dupress Ragland, of attempted second degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty years in confinement. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions, but we reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences and remanded to the trial court for consideration of the Wilkerson factors. State v. Ragland, W2022-01303-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 3947501, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 12, 2023), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. On remand, the trial court found that the Defendant was a dangerous offender and again imposed consecutive sentences. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it found that he was a dangerous offender for purposes of consecutive sentencing. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that the Defendant’s sentences should be served concurrently, rather than consecutively.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Marcus Dejuan Perkins, of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying an enhancement factor and denying an alternative sentence to incarceration. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.