THAPAR, Circuit Judge. A Michigan court rule forbids recording, photographing, or livestreaming judicial proceedings. Nicholas Somberg claims that rule violates the First Amendment. Because Somberg lacks Article III standing to pursue his claim, we remand with instructions to dismiss.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This trademark action arises out of a dispute within the Libertarian Party of Michigan (referred to by name or as the “Michigan affiliate”). The Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (“LNC”) sued dissenting members of the Michigan affiliate—mainly former officers of the affiliate or board members of local parties—for using the LNC’s trademark to hold themselves out as the official Michigan affiliate after a turnover of power resulted in two factions claiming to hold power. The district court granted the LNC’s request to preliminarily enjoin the dissenting members’ use of the mark, and the dissenting members appealed. They argue that the district court’s application of the Lanham Act to the context of noncommercial speech both unduly expands the Act and violates the First Amendment. Even if the Lanham Act covers the dissenting members’ use of the trademark, they argue that their use was authorized and not likely to cause confusion. We affirm in part and vacate in part the preliminary injunction.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Meng Huang, a former engineering student at The Ohio State University, alleges that her advisor, Professor Giorgio Rizzoni, sexually harassed and assaulted her while she pursued her Ph.D. She brought this action against OSU and Rizzoni. Relevant on appeal are the district court’s grant of summary judgment to OSU on Huang’s Title VII quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and a trial verdict in Rizzoni’s favor on Huang’s due process claim that he violated her right to bodily integrity.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. In 2021, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) promulgated a rule requiring Title X grant recipients to provide neutral, nondirective counseling and referrals for abortions to patients who request it. Tennessee, which has been a Title X recipient for over 50 years, recently outlawed most abortions in the state. After doing so, Tennessee would commit only to conducting counseling and referrals for options deemed legal in the state. HHS considered Tennessee’s commitment to be out of compliance with its regulatory requirements. So it opted to discontinue the grant. Tennessee filed suit to challenge HHS’s action and enjoin it from closing the grant. The district court denied Tennessee’s request for preliminary injunction because it held that Tennessee does not have a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim and that the balance of the remaining preliminary injunction factors weigh in HHS’s favor. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

A mother relocated out-of-state with her children and filed a petition to modify the existing parenting plan. The father filed a competing petition for modification. The trial court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parenting plan. It crafted two modified parenting plans: one which would take effect if the mother remained out-of-state and the other which would take effect if she returned to Tennessee. The mother returned and now argues the parenting plan should not have been modified. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“the Department”) denied the claimant’s claim for unemployment benefits after determining that the claimant had “voluntarily quit” his job. The claimant appealed, but the Department’s appeals tribunal denied the appeal as untimely. The claimant appealed further to the Department’s office of administrative review, which affirmed the appeals tribunal’s decision. Four years later, the claimant sought judicial review of the Department’s decision by filing a civil warrant in the Davidson County General Sessions Court (“general sessions court”). The general sessions court dismissed the civil warrant upon a motion filed by the Department, and the claimant appealed to the Davidson County Circuit Court (“trial court”). The Department moved to dismiss the action based upon (1) insufficiency of service of process, (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(1), (2), (5), and (6). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on all grounds. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal after the trial court denied a motion to recuse. In light of Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, we affirm.

West Tennessee District Attorney General Fred Agee has requested a state investigation into Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, for allegedly posting documents online containing a defendant's personal information, including a Social Security number, potentially in violation of state law. Agee's complaint, filed with the state Comptroller’s Office and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, stems from Taylor's social media posts showcasing a plea agreement in a case Agee handled, which Agee says were intended to criticize him and potentially expose sensitive information. Taylor claimed the documents were shared to highlight what he perceived as lenient plea deals, and said he removed the documents when he became aware of privacy concerns. The request for investigation also explores whether the Gibson County Sheriff’s Office, where Sheriff Paul Thomas is indicted for a separate scheme, provided Taylor with the information. The Daily Memphian has more on this story.

Shelby County Clerk Wanda Halbert has once again filed a motion to dismiss an ouster petition against her. This time, she argues that the attorney hired by the Shelby County Attorney's Office lacks standing to bring the case, according to the Commercial Appeal. Halbert's attorneys claim that only the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, the Shelby County District Attorney's Office, or the Shelby County Attorney's Office can file such a petition. However, both the district attorney and the county attorney have stated they have a conflict of interest in the matter. The state attorney general has declined to intervene, citing the political nature of the case. Halbert's attorneys also argue that the county attorney's office did not have the authority to hire outside counsel without approval from the Shelby County Board of Commissioners.

Women are outnumbering men on state ballots this fall, with two women competing for Tennessee's U.S. Senate seat, and Vice-President Kamala Harris running in the presidential election. According to Knox News, reports find this increase in female candidates mirrors a national trend that may help close the gender gap in political representation. The paper cites data from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, which reveals that only 15% of Tennessee's state legislators are women. Additionally, a recent Vanderbilt poll highlights significant gender differences on policy issues. "The variations we observe among registered voters ... indicate that gender-based opinions could have substantial effects on voting and policy-making, both in our state and nationwide,” says Joshua Clinton, co-director of the poll.