A four-count indictment was unsealed yesterday in the Middle District of Tennessee, charging eight defendants with various offenses related to their roles in a transnational commercial sex enterprise. According to the court's press release, the defendants operated an illegal commercial sex and sex trafficking ring out of Nashville motels from July 2022 through March 2024. The indictment alleges that after facilitating the victims’ arrival in the U.S., the defendants used online commercial sex websites to post advertisements and directed commercial sex buyers to meet the victims at the motels. Authorities identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. In November 2024, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation warned that the gang was operating in major cities across the state. “This indictment demonstrates our commitment to stop human trafficking whenever and wherever we find it, and to hold those involved accountable,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire.

Two Shelby County legislators have brought back a proposal to fund a new Shelby County jail by asking voters to hike the sales tax rate. Rep. John Gillespie, R-Memphis, and Sen. Raumesh Akbari, D-Memphis, proposed a bill that would allow Shelby County to ask voters whether to raise the local-option sales tax from 2.75% to 3.75%. According to The Daily Memphian, if the bill clears the Tennessee General Assembly, the tax increase would still require approval through a local referendum. While the bill does not explicitly name Shelby County, it applies to counties with populations exceeding 900,000, a threshold only Shelby County meets. Fiscal estimates attached to the bill project that the tax hike would generate more than $1.8 billion over nine fiscal years, with the revenue designated to retire debt from constructing a new jail. The bill was set to be heard by a Tennessee House committee today.

The TBA will host three ethics webcasts on March 27, featuring the CLE Performer Stuart Teicher. The sessions will blend humor, pop culture and professional responsibility to provide insightful lessons on attorney ethics. Wedded Bliss and Attorney Ethics will explore how principles of a lasting marriage connect to legal ethics, covering topics like communication and conflicts of interest. Ted Lasso and Attorney Ethics will use moments from the hit show to illustrate integrity, leadership and key rules of professional conduct. The Perfect Pop Song and Attorney Ethics will reveal what makes a song timeless and relate it to legal competence, communication and ethical structure. Attorneys can register for these interactive webcasts through the TBA website.

The TBA will launch an upgraded legal research tool for members on March 4 following the merger of longstanding TBA member benefit partner Fastcase with global legal intelligence platform vLex. The enhanced tool will continue to offer free and unlimited access to all materials currently available through Fastcase, but also include new benefits such as advanced citator features, integration with Microsoft Word and Google Chrome, a more user-friendly interface, customizable news feed and featured libraries. Following the transition, customer support will be handled by vLex and will be available by phone, email and chat. Fastcase users will not lose access to their work during the transition and no action will be required to enjoy the benefits of this upgrade after March 4. To help educate members about these improvements, the TBA will hold two webinars at which vLex Fastcase staff will demonstrate new features and highlight how to maximize the tool’s potential for legal practice. Sign up for one of these free webinars and learn more on the TBA website.

Question: May a municipality annex noncontiguous territory that lies outside the municipality’s urban growth boundary?

Opinion: No.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Southern Ohio Coal Company (“Southern Ohio Coal”) petitions this court for review of a decision awarding federal coal miners’ benefits to former miner, Donald Hunter. Southern Ohio Coal argues that the adjudicators below erred by relying on medical evidence that did not comply with regulatory quality standards and by relieving Hunter of his burden to establish that he met the conditions for entitlement to benefits. In particular, Southern Ohio Coal argues that Hunter did not establish that he has legal pneumoconiosis or that his total disability is caused by pneumoconiosis. Because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) acted within his discretion and because his decision was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review is DENIED.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Every day in this country, politicians solicit donations to finance their campaigns. And every day, those same politicians make statements about what they believe in, what they’ve done, and what they promise to do once elected. Sometimes, even often, these solicitations and promises occur in the same place, at the same time. But though this speech and conduct are generally protected by the First Amendment, bribery remains illegal.1 When the bribery involves money flowing to a politician for his personal use, the crime is straightforward. But when a politician is accused of accepting campaign funds in exchange for the promise of official action, the line becomes blurrier. Still, the Supreme Court tells us there is a line. And Congress and the Court have entrusted juries with discerning between legitimate campaign donations and illegitimate bribes. We must respect that line even in hard cases. This is one such case. A jury convicted former Cincinnati council member Alexander “P.G.” Sittenfeld of attempted Hobbs Act extortion and federal-program bribery. But this case comes with twists. All the major players, except for Sittenfeld, were working for or with the government—that is, these were paid actors working to incriminate Sittenfeld. And despite nearly every relevant conversation being recorded, the investigation didn’t yield overwhelming evidence. Still, a jury found that Sittenfeld solicited or accepted campaign donations in exchange for his promise to support a property development project. On appeal, Sittenfeld challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him and argues that his indictment was constructively amended. But neither challenge succeeds, so we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Tyler Michael Benson, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to aggravated sexual battery and aggravated kidnapping, arguing that his pleas were involuntary and unknowing due to his “mental health impairments,” his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, and “the miscommunication regarding probation eligibility.” Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion.

This appeal arises out of a divorce action filed by the appellee/husband. Following a course of inaction by the appellant/wife, the trial court granted a final decree of divorce by default in favor of the husband. The wife filed multiple motions seeking to have the trial court alter or amend the final decree. The trial court ultimately granted in part, and denied in part, wife’s post-judgment motions. The appellant appeals the ultimate judgment of the trial court. Having determined that the appellant’s brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that her issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the appellee requests his attorney’s fees incurred on appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to find this appeal frivolous and further decline to award appellee his attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal.

William Joseph Robinette and his daughters, Delores Reynolds and Jody Stewart, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in the Sullivan County Chancery Court (“the Trial Court”), seeking a declaration of their rights as the lawful owners of Fuller Enterprises, LLC against the right of ownership by Tina Robinette (“Widow”), the widow of Mr. Robinette’s son and Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Stewart’s brother, Will Robinette (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs later added Decedent’s estate and Fuller Asphalt Material, LLC, as additional defendants (collectively with Widow, “Defendants”). Widow filed abusive civil action (“ACA”) motions against Plaintiffs, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.