Law & Courts

MEMPHIS — Shelby County Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins on Monday, Oct. 19, temporarily stopped the state's intervention in Memphis-Shelby County Schools. The ruling came shortly before the state-appointed oversight board was due to meet. It returned control to the elected school board. Four days earlier, on Oct. 15, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. lifted the federal block he had imposed in late June. That block had delayed the takeover for more than three months. The district and Shelby County filed the Chancery case on Oct. 7. They have since dropped state constitutional claims from it. The case now focuses on whether the state had enough evidence to place the district under the intervention law. The federal suit, which includes constitutional challenges, continues separately. Neither case has decided whether the oversight board will ultimately take charge.

NASHVILLE — A three-judge chancery panel in Nashville has dismissed Young et al. v. Lee, a suit by parents and taxpayers against Gov. Bill Lee and state officials over the Education Freedom Scholarship program. The vote was 2-1. The panel is Chancellors John Rambo and Anne Martin and Judge Joseph Howell. The majority held that the state constitution requires a public school system but does not prohibit funding private education. It also held that a claim of inadequate public-school funding must target the funding statutes, such as TISA, not the voucher law. Claims against Lee were dismissed largely because he does not enforce the act. One judge dissented on the public-school funding claim. The program is described as a $260 million effort covering about 35,000 students this year. The ruling also acknowledged shortcomings in the state's school-funding formula. Plaintiffs could appeal.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard Salazar v. Paramount Global in its October sitting. The case comes from the Sixth Circuit. A 247Sports newsletter subscriber says Paramount used Meta's tracking pixel to send his Facebook ID and viewing history to Facebook without consent. The question is whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act covers subscribers to any product from a video provider, or only video customers. A summary of the arguments by the nonpartisan group No Labels said the justices appeared likely to side with Salazar. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether that would trigger a wave of suits against streaming businesses, while others noted companies can obtain consent. A ruling for Salazar would not by itself make Paramount liable. A decision is expected by the end of June 2027.