CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
AVANTAX WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 23-5880 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:21-cv-00810—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: May 2, 2024
Decided and Filed: July 12, 2024
Before: SILER, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (“Marriott”) appeals the
denial of its motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff
Avantax Wealth Management, Inc. (“Avantax”). After terminating a contract with a hotel
managed by Marriott, Avantax brought the instant declaratory judgment action against Marriott,
seeking a declaration approving its termination of the contract. Marriott thereafter filed a
counterclaim for breach of contract, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted Avantax’s motion for summary judgment and denied Marriott’s motion for
summary judgment because it concluded that Avantax validly terminated the contract under the
contract’s force majeure clause. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district
court’s order. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
KAYLA GORE; L.G.; K.N.; JAIME COMBS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WILLIAM BYRON LEE, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Tennessee; LISA PIERCEY, in
her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Health,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-5669 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:19-cv-00328—Eli J. Richardson, District Judge.
Argued: May 2, 2024
Decided and Filed: July 12, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; WHITE and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. After a child is born, Tennessee creates a birth certificate that
identifies the biological sex of the newborn. While the State permits individuals to change some
aspects of their birth certificates (such as a new name or the identity of adoptive parents), it treats
the sex listed on a birth certificate as a historical fact unchangeable by an individual’s transition
to a different gender identity. At issue is whether that policy violates the United States
Constitution.
. . .
Either way, we as judges cannot ignore the legal reality that the United States
Constitution does not speak directly to this evolving issue in our society. What it does require—
rational grounds for drawing policy choices—is too modest an obligation to make a difference in
the debate at the center of today’s case.
We affirm. |
|