Image Credit: TN General Assembly & Canva
Tennessee Conservative News [By David Seal] –
When the Tennessee General Assembly redrew congressional districts in the recent special session, court challenges were expected. Those challenges came quickly.
The opponents of redistricting knew the clock was running and that time was critical in obtaining relief. Despite the time restraints, arguments ensued over which judge would hear the cases.
Within days of the governor signing into law the new district lines for Congressional Districts 5, 6, and 9, pleadings were filed by plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Their aim was to undo the action taken by the legislature to redraw congressional district lines.
Here are highlights from two such cases.
Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief in Hale v. Lee states in part as follows: “Injunctive relief, including a temporary and permanent injunction, prohibiting Defendants from implementing and enforcing of the Act during the 2026 election cycle;”
Pursuant to Administrative Order 176, the case was assigned to Chief District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. “Additionally, parties have requested both cases be heard by a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. §2284. Plaintiffs here have requested a three-judge court in their Complaint, which Defendants agree is appropriate.”
Concerning Administrative Order 176, The most pertinent detail in the order is found at the bottom under Procedure for Reassignment of Related Civil Cases, Related Case Determination: Related Cases shall be transferred to the District Judge presiding over the first case filed (Hale v. Lee, assigned to Judge Campbell). The District Judge presiding over the reassigned case shall enter an Order making the transfer and explaining the reasons for the reassignment.
Hale v. Lee was filed on May 7, 2026.
On May 21, in Hale v. Lee Judge Campell denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
A second case was filed in federal court, Sherman v. Hargett was filed on May 11, 2026, which sought the following 6 items of relief.
“1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the May 2026 Map was enacted with a discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and/or constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from calling, holding, supervising, or certifying any elections under the May 2026 Map. Plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy at law other than the judicial relief sought herein and will be irreparably harmed through violation of their constitutional and statutory rights without this relief;
3. Declare that the congressional plan enacted by the General Assembly in 2022 remains in effect, including for the 2026 election for United States House of Representatives;
4. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable provision providing such relief;
5. Issue an order retaining jurisdiction over this matter until the Defendants, their agents, employees, and those persons acting in concert with them have complied with all orders and mandates of this Court; and 6. Grant such other and further relief as it deems is proper and just.”
The Sherman v. Hargett case was assigned to District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
Since both cases, Hale and Sherman, were asking for similar relief, the parties agreed to consolidate the cases and that Chief District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., from the first-filed case, would hear the consolidated cases. The emails between the ACLU and state attorneys bear out this agreement, see document package linked at the end of this article.
Then the Plaintiffs and ACLU apparently changed their mind on the assignment of cases to Chief District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.
“After assignment though, and without conferring with Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the instant “motion to retain” this case in this Court. Emails Regarding Case assignment, (Ex. 3).” The Plaintiffs and ACLU wanted to keep District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., a fact made obvious by their “Motion to Retain.”
A snippet from the state of Tennessee’s response to the Motion to Retain is as follows.
“Accordingly, earlier today, Defendants’ counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel
to obtain their position on a motion to consolidate Hale and this case [Sherman] in front of Chief Judge Campbell. At that time, this case hadn’t been assigned, and Plaintiffs stated that they would not oppose coordinated proceedings if the case was assigned to Judge Campbell. Emails Regarding Consolidation, (Ex. 2).”
The state of Tennessee in Sherman v. Hargett opposed the Plaintiffs Motion to Retain the Case Assignment to District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
Counsel for the state of Tennessee described the motion by the Plaintiffs to retain [District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.] as troubling and created the appearance of “judge-shopping.” The relevant text from that motion reads as follows.
“Plaintiffs’ attempt to thwart that usual process is troubling. In recent federal constitutional litigation, ACLU counsel was extensively investigated for “judge-shopping.” See Boe v. Marshall, 767 F. Supp. 3d 1226, 1249-50, 1267-68 (M.D. Ala. 2025). Today’s motion by ACLU counsel, contrary to their own representations that this case is related to the first-filed case, risks creating an unacceptable appearance of the same.”
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants in the cases have now agreed to have the cases decided by a three-judge panel. However, the clock is running, and the election process is in motion. The cases are still moving forward with the next step being the Defendants’ response, due on June 26, 2026.
From May 27, 2026: Order for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit: This matter is before the Court upon the request of the Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to appoint a three-judge panel to hear four cases challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s newly enacted congressional districts.
Chief Judge [Jeffery S.] Sutton hereby designates the Honorable John B. Nalbandian, Circuit Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Honorable Greg N. Stivers, District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to serve with the Honorable William L. Campbell in this matter.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 29, 2026, granted extended time for the Defendants [State of Tennessee] to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints “to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints in the above-captioned matters, such that all responsive pleadings would be due on June 26, 2026. Plaintiffs do not oppose this request.”
In the state case, NAACP v Lee, a three-judge panel has already upheld the congressional redistricting of Districts 5,6 and 9. A copy of the state court decision, emails between the parties in the federal cases, and the case pleadings are included in the document package linked below.
Document Package:
Hale v. Lee order for MTRO denied
NAACP v. Lee – 26-0591-II 5-26-26-SIGNED – Order of Dismissal
Link To Federal Administrative Order 176, referenced in the court pleadings.
About the Author: David Seal is a retired Jefferson County educator, recognized artist, local businessman, 917 Society Volunteer, and past Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party. He has also served Jefferson County as a County Commissioner and is a citizen lobbyist for the people on issues such as eminent domain, property rights, education, and broadband accessibility on the state level. David is also a 2024 winner of The Tennessee Conservative Flame Award & has received an accolade from the Institute For Justice for successfully lobbing the TN legislature to protect property rights. David can be reached at david@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
One Response
Are judges Nalbandian and Stivers know for doing the right thing?