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.