SUTTON, Chief Judge. At issue is whether the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from the party’s candidate for office, violate the First Amendment. In 2001, the Supreme Court held that they do not. FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 465. In this action, the plaintiffs argue that the law and facts have changed since 2001, making the Colorado decision no longer binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court, they point out, has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulations in the last two decades. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 227 (2014) (plurality opinion); id. at 231–32 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment); FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 313 (2022). And since then, they add, the terrain of political fundraising and spending has changed, most notably with 2014 amendments to the Act and with the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees. These are fair points. But none of them gives us authority to overlook or for that matter override the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as- applied challenges.

Defendant, Tevin Wayne Griffin, was convicted by a Davidson County jury for the premeditated first degree murder of the victim and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that during trial Defendant opened the door to previously excluded cell site location data and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted with premeditation. Upon our review of the entire record, oral arguments and briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Shelby County Sheriff's Office is seeking to reallocate funding originally dedicated to the inmate mental health center to fund emergency projects around the Shelby County Justice Center, the Commercial Appeal reports. According to the paper, the proposal has sparked debate among county commissioners, with some supporting the move and others criticizing it as a diversion from essential mental health services. Earlier this year, Shelby County Sheriff’s deputies relocated inmates after a power surge broke cell locks at the jail. Last week, the elevators at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center were reported to be in a state of disrepair, causing safety concerns for employees, visitors and inmates.

Campbell Perky Johnson (CPJ), a family law firm in Franklin, has expanded its practice areas with the addition of David Cañas as a new partner. According to the firm, Cañas brings 30 years of experience in commercial, bankruptcy and real estate litigation, significantly expanding the firm's capabilities. According to a press release, the move marks a new chapter for the firm as it expands its practice areas to better serve clients. Announcing the hiring, co-managing partner Sarah Perky said, Cañas' "tenacity, legal expertise and client dedication make him a perfect fit" at the firm.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Young Lawyers Division has released a student debt survey that reveals the significant impact of student debt on the lives — including career plans, financial stability and mental health — of young lawyers. According to a press release, the study found that many young attorneys delayed major life events due to debt, and many felt stressed and anxious about their finances. While the COVID-19 loan repayment pause provided some relief, the survey also highlighted the need for more comprehensive solutions to address the student debt crisis.

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Mary L. Wagner received a warm welcome to the bench as family, friends, colleagues, elected officials and the judiciary joined her in Germantown for a ceremonial investiture by Gov. Bill Lee. “Justice Wagner is highly qualified and brings significant experience to the Tennessee Supreme Court,” Lee said. “Her understanding and respect for the rule of law and commitment to the conservative principles of judicial restraint make her well-suited for the state’s highest court, and I am proud to celebrate her investiture.” Wagner was confirmed by the Tennessee legislature in March and her term began Sept. 1. She earned her bachelor’s degree at the University of Colorado at Boulder and her law degree at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Wagner fills a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Roger A. Page. Read more in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts and see photos from the event.

The Knoxville Latino Bar Association (KLBA) will host its second annual gala on Sept. 27 from 6-9 p.m. EDT at the Foundry on the Fair Site, 747 Worlds Fair Park Dr., Knoxville 37902. The event, themed "Forjando Tu Futuro: Overcoming Challenges," will honor Carlos Yunsan, the Knoxville Bar Association's first Latino president. Learn more and purchase tickets here.

The Tennessee Ethics Commission has dismissed a complaint against Education Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds. The complaint, initially filed by Rep. Caleb Hemmer, D-Nashville, alleged that Reynolds accepted travel reimbursements from a national advocacy group that also lobbies to expand education choice policies. The commission considered the complaint last week behind closed doors and ultimately voted not to refer the matter to the attorney general’s office for further investigation. The Tennessean reports that Reynolds’ repayment of the funds was the deciding factor in the decision to dismiss the complaint. Hemmer this week announced plans to file legislation next year to clarify state ethics laws that prohibit officials from accepting travel paid by groups that lobby the legislature.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Oklahoma's bid to reinstate over $4 million in Title X funding while its legal challenge against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proceeds. According to SCOTUSblog, the dispute involves Title X's federal requirement for abortion counseling and referrals, which conflicts with Oklahoma's abortion restrictions. Oklahoma argued that these requirements violate the Constitution’s spending clause and federal Weldon Amendment, which protects providers who refuse abortion referrals. The federal government countered that Congress routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements and that the Weldon Amendment does not cover state agencies. Oklahoma also argued that a recent ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a district court’s decision withholding similar funds from Tennessee, should not influence the court because the Weldon Amendment was not cited in that case.