The American Bar Association’s (ABA) suit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at several law firms is moving forward after a federal judge rejected a Justice Department’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case. According to Bloomberg News, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the ABA plausibly alleged “a realistic threat of sanctions to establish its standing” and that the organization sufficiently argued that executive orders against certain firms and deals with others have chilled free speech. The DOJ has argued that the ABA does not have standing to bring the suit. The case is American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has named nine members — three judges and six practicing attorneys — to the new Office of the Appointed Counsel Commission (OACC). Created under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 56, the commission and Executive Director Joe Byrd are tasked with ensuring effective legal representation by appointed private counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney in criminal defense and child welfare cases. “The Court appreciates the members’ willingness to serve at this early stage,” said Chief Justice Jeff Bivins. “Assisting in establishing the Appointed Counsel Commission will require significant time and commitment.” New members named are 1st Judicial District Criminal Court Judge Lisa Rice, 20th Judicial District Criminal Court Judge Jim Todd, retired Shelby County Juvenile Court Magistrate Judge Terre Fratesi, and attorneys Loretta Cravens and Joshua Hedrick of Knoxville, Lowe Finney of Martin, David Grimmett of Franklin, Mark Messler of Memphis, and Emily Wright of Livingston. Read more in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The TBA’s Young Lawyers Division will host the inaugural YLD Business College: Transactional Law Essentials next week on April 10 in Nashville, offering an in-person program designed as a practical refresher and foundation for new and young attorneys, as well as lawyers seeking to strengthen their transactional practice skills. The program will focus on core concepts, ethical considerations and emerging issues in business law, with sessions covering topics such as closing the deal, business ethics, business formation and hot topics, and will feature faculty including Laura Chastain of the Board of Professional Responsibility, Claire Tuley of Baker Donelson and John Wagster of Eden Firm PLLC. Registration opens at 9 a.m., with programming running from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. All times Central.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from Donna Greenwell Dutton’s lawsuit against the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) for attempting to enforce state judicial ethics rules against her. The JCC suspected that Dutton’s statement to a newspaper during her campaign for reelection ran afoul of three rules in the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct (KCJC). After the JCC sent Dutton a Proposed Agreed Order to discipline her, Dutton sued Jimmy Shaffer, in her official capacity as Executive Secretary of the JCC, as well as R. Michael Sullivan, Jeff S. Taylor, Elizabeth Chandler, Eddy Coleman, Joe E. Ellis, and Janet Lively McCauley, in their official capacities as Members of the JCC. Alleging that the JCC’s attempt to enforce the KCJC violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment, Dutton pled one facial challenge and one as-applied challenge to each of the three rules. The district court granted summary judgment and ordered permanent injunctive relief in favor of Dutton based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), which prohibits judicial candidates from making false statements of material fact. Yet the court rejected Dutton’s as-applied challenges to Rule 1.2, which requires judicial candidates to uphold judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality, and Rule 2.4(B), which prohibits them from allowing personal relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The court also denied Dutton relief based on her facial challenges to all three Rules. We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order. While the district court properly granted Dutton’s motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), it erred in denying her motion based on her as- applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B).

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Guy Collins has thrice moved for early termination of his eight-year term of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The district court denied the first motion despite concluding that further supervision appeared unnecessary to deter Collins or to protect the public. The court denied the second motion in a one-paragraph order emphasizing that Collins had yet to complete at least fifty percent of his supervised-release term, pursuant to the district court’s custom. And the district court denied the third motion, resisting Collins’s argument that it had improperly relied on its fifty-percent custom and reasoning that requiring Collins to complete at least half of his term was necessary for deterrence and for protection of the public. Collins timely appealed the second and third orders. Because the district court abused its discretion in both, we VACATE the decisions of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This is an enforcement proceeding against Americare Healthcare Services, Inc., a third-party provider of home care services, and its owner, Mr. Dilli Adhikari, for failing to compensate their employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime hours worked between October 2018 and October 2021. Under a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor in 2013, third-party employers of home care workers are not permitted to claim either the “Companionship Services Exemption” or the “Live-In Exemption” to the FLSA’s overtime requirements. Americare and Adhikari contend the regulation is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and, thus, that the FLSA’s overtime requirements are not enforceable against them because they are entitled to avail themselves of either statutory exemption. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Department. Americare and Adhikari also seek to challenge a regulation that narrowed the definition of “companionship services” under the FLSA, but the district court found they lacked standing. Because we find the third-party regulation is a valid exercise of the Secretary of Labor’s expressly delegated authority as to both exemptions, and that Americare and Adhikari lack standing to challenge the “companionship services” definition, we AFFIRM.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. When officers attempted to arrest Derek Aaron for a home invasion and a violent robbery, he pulled his hands away and refused to place them behind his back. After pulling on Aaron’s arms and issuing verbal orders, officers took him to the ground. When Aaron sued the officers for excessive force under § 1983, they moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion in part, reasoning that a jury could find that the officers violated Aaron’s clearly established rights. We disagree and reverse.

A gas company obtained an easement by eminent domain across a property owner’s land. A jury determined the amount of just compensation payable to the landowner. On appeal, the gas company argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear expert testimony from the landowner’s expert regarding the value of the property and that the jury verdict is not supported by material evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the relation back doctrine under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. The plaintiffs sued a corporate entity for premises liability. The corporate defendant successfully moved for summary judgment on grounds that it did not own the subject property. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend in which they sought leave to amend their complaint to name a separate corporate entity as a defendant. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the initial mistake was a misnomer and that the plaintiffs were not seeking to add a new party even though the defendant to be added was a distinct corporate entity. The defendants sought permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted. The record contains no evidence that the separate corporate entity named by the plaintiffs in their amended pleading received timely notice of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on April 1 permanently disbarred Madison County lawyer Marcus Allen Lipham from the practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to seven former clients in the total amount of $26,500. The court took the action based on nine separate misconduct complaints. The court determined that Lipham knowingly failed to provide competent representation, act within the scope and authority communicated by clients, act with reasonable diligence, communicate with clients, properly terminate representation, expedite litigation, provide legal services after accepting fees and respond to multiple inquiries for information. The court also found that he charged unreasonable fees, made false statements to courts and parties and engaged in misconduct involving prejudice to the administration of justice. His actions were determined to violate Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 8.1 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).