The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship on May 15. The government is seeking to enforce the president’s executive order ending the guarantee of citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The court left in place orders by three federal judges, which had prohibited the government from enforcing the executive order anywhere in the country, until it rules on the matter. Read more about the case history from SCOTUSblog.

A U.S. judicial panel has voted to abandon a core part of a proposed rule aimed at increasing disclosure of who funds friend-of-the-court briefs by outside groups, Reuters reports. The proposal would have required non-profits, charities or trade associations that file amicus briefs to disclose when a party in a case contributed 25% or more of the organization's annual revenue. The rule had drawn criticism from associations, some judges and the U.S. Department of Justice. However, the panel did approve a proposal requiring an amicus brief filer to name any donor who earmarked money for preparation of the brief if that person or entity had been a member of the organization for less than 12 months. That proposed rule now goes to the Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure for its consideration.

The Arts & Business Council of Greater Nashville and its Volunteer Lawyers & Professionals for the Arts (VLPA) program will hold a clinic on May 7 for those needing legal advice on issues surrounding their creative practice. The free 30-minute in-person appointments are available to income-qualified artists, musicians, creatives and arts organizations in the state. The clinic will run from 6-8 p.m. CDT at the Belmont College of Law, Randall and Sadie Baskin Center, 1901 15th Ave. S., Nashville 37212. Those needing help should register by May 2. To volunteer at the clinic email vlpa@abcnashville.org.

The death of record company magnate J.W. Hanks has upended our community, leaving the town reeling with a murderer in our midst. Hanks’ untimely demise has sparked gossip and intrigue, revealing a double life only discovered through death. Join the TBA and colleagues from across the state as we travel to the roaring 1920s and unravel this mystery. Gumshoes will use Tennessee’s latest criminal laws to uncover crucial clues to unmask the killer and put this brazen crook in the birdhouse. Was Hanks’ killer his business partner, his doctor, his wife, his mistress, his best friend or someone else he trusted? It’s up to you to solve.

The Tennessee General Assembly passed the budget for FY2025-2026 which includes an additional $17 million to fund the new Plan for Indigent Representation in Tennessee. TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr. reacted to the development saying, “The TBA thanks the General Assembly and Gov. Lee for making indigent representation funding a priority, and is especially grateful to Chief Justice Holly Kirby, the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of the Courts for their leadership and development of the Indigent Representation plan, which will result in better solutions to improve the system of indigent representation in Tennessee.” The budget is the one piece of legislation that lawmakers constitutionally are required to pass before adjournment. Once the budget is approved, lawmakers will consider matters “behind the budget” that received funding, as well as other priority items. The legislature is expected to adjourn early next week.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. During a late-night traffic stop, officers found two firearms in Andre Whitlow’s car. Since Whitlow was a felon, it was illegal for him to have the guns. At trial, a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession. He appeals, challenging various aspects of the traffic stop and conviction. We affirm.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Cheyenne Witt died of a morphine overdose after her dentist, Jay Sadrinia, prescribed her that medication twice in three days. A jury convicted Sadrinia of knowingly prescribing Witt a controlled substance without a legitimate medical purpose resulting in her death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We hold that sufficient evidence supported Sadrinia’s conviction. But we agree with him that the district court improperly admitted—as “intrinsic evidence” of the conduct charged in the indictment— testimony about bad acts unrelated to that conduct. The government, on that point, does not even argue the contrary. We vacate Sadrinia’s convictions and remand his case for a new trial.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Joseph Ebu, a lawful permanent resident, was subject to concurrent naturalization and removal proceedings. Believing that the pending removal proceedings took priority over his naturalization application, defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) delayed considering Ebu’s naturalization application until his removal proceedings concluded. But when that delay exceeded 120 days following his naturalization examination, Ebu asked the district court to “determine” his naturalization application and declare him prima facie eligible for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Relying on our unpublished opinion in Rahman v. Napolitano, 385 F. App’x 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2010), the district court dismissed Ebu’s complaint under a separate provision that prohibits the determination of a naturalization application while removal proceedings are pending, see 8 U.S.C. § 1429. Because Rahman is sound, we affirm the district court’s dismissal and hold that § 1429 precludes district courts from considering naturalization applications under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are simultaneously pending against the applicant.

The Defendant, William Joel Lauper, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of aggravated assault, domestic assault resulting in a bodily injury, and preventing another from making an emergency call, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days of confinement. In this direct appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the State established the essential element of serious bodily injury to sustain the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. After review, we affirm.

The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against seven defendants. Their complaint asserted various counts arising out of the defendants’ involvement with a water loss claim the plaintiffs had reported to their insurer. Four of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court granted their motions and simply stated at the end of its order of dismissal, “This is a final and appealable order and there is no just cause for delay.” The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. This Court entered two show cause orders, directing the appellants to either obtain a final judgment or show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. We then entered an order deferring the matter to the panel of the Court deciding this appeal. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its order as final and dismiss this appeal.