Tag: Herbert Slatery

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

New AG, Same Old Conservative Partisanship

Jonathan Skrmetti (Photo: tncourts.gov)

Tennessee’s new Attorney General, a former Memphian, is holding to the same conservative partisanship as his predecessor. 

Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in as Tennessee’s 28th Attorney General on September 1st, beginning an eight-year term. He was appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in August. 

Skrmetti follows the death-sentence pushing, private-school-voucher loving, gender-identity discriminating, cannabis-law over-reaching, vaccine-mandate fighting, election-meddling, and gay-marriage opponent Herbert Slatery. 

From some of the first news releases (i.e. the stuff he wants the public to know about), Skrmetti seems like he’ll continue Slatery’s work. While the news release from his swearing-in ceremony had Skrmetti proclaiming he’d advocate “for the rights and freedoms of all Tennesseans,” he quickly went to work against some Tennessee school kids. 

Skrmetti carried on Slatery’s fight against a set of Biden-Administration rules that would allow federal protections for gender identity in school programs. Instead of fighting for “all Tennesseans” — like trans kids — Skrmetti claimed the protections would “promote sex-based discrimination and threaten constitutional rights.” The argument made it pretty clear Skrmetti aimed to fight for only some Tennesseans.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee stopped the rules from going into effect in July. The U.S. Department of Education paused the regulations for a two-month period of public comment. Last week, Skrmetti led 19 other state AGs (from the usual bastions of “freedom for all” like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) in a letter to the feds, blasting the proposed rules. 

He said expanding Title IX, the landmark rule that bans sex-baed discrimination in schools, state university employees would be forced to use “certain pronouns and other referential terms.” This would violate the First Amendment, Skrmetti claimed. 

His letter wrings hands over who can play on what sports teams, giving science-sounding arguments on the differences in human bodies, and that new rules “would not be fair to female athletes.” 

As for “student and faculty safety,” Skrmetti’s letter contains the word “bathroom” 24 times. He frightens with some news stories and some court records that apparently prove that “public toilets … are often the locale of [numerous crimes].” He notes the Education Department “fails to recognize that its new rules will enable this nefarious conduct.”

Three days after attacking school equity, Skrmetti joined another multi-state effort to “demand” President Joe Biden label fentanyl a “Weapon of Mass Destruction.” While this move may be a bit more bipartisan (it had support form AGs in Guam, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Connecticut), the Bush-era language made it sound conservative. 

Fentanyl is a cheap, lethal synthetic opioid that is widely spreading and killing thousands. The AGs’ motivation to get the feds to help them stop its spread is plain. Their strategy to get there is not. They know this. In the letter, they said they understand the criticisms. It’s a drug control problem, not a weapons problem. Also, other than one Russian incident, no one has yet weaponized fentanyl. 

However, “the fact that classifying fentanyl would have an ancillary effect of preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans would be an additional, beneficial reason to classify fentanyl,” the letter reads. “Given fentanyl’s lethality, low cost, and abundant availability, waiting for some state or non-state actor to utilize it as weapon before it is classified as such seems to be the same type of reasoning that kept the government from investigating foreign nationals learning to fly, but not land planes in the lead up to September 11th.”

On Tuesday, Skrmetti was back on the partisan front lines, this time protecting gun owners from credit card companies. 

Skrmetti and 24 other AGs warned American Express, Mastercard, and Visa that their creation of a merchant category code for firearms “is potentially a violation of consumer protection and antitrust laws.”

“Giant financial companies must not use their combined market power to circumvent our representative democracy,” Skrmetti said in a news release. “As Attorney General, I protect the people of Tennessee from corporate collusion that threatens to undermine their constitutional rights. Working together with my colleagues from other states, we will marshal the full scope of our lawful authority to stop this abuse.”

Skrmetti spent a lot of time in Memphis. He was a federal prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division and then served as Assistant U.S. Attorney here. He was a partner at Butler Snow in Memphis. He then went to work as Chief Deputy Attorney General and as chief counsel to Tennessee Governor Bill Lee. 

Skrmetti, his wife, and their four children now live in Franklin and attend Harpeth Hills Church of Christ, according to a news release from his office.  

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee AG Slatery Celebrates Win In LGBTQ Discrimination Lawsuit

Y’all means all, y’all. (Photo: Nashville LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce)

Tennessee’s Attorney General celebrated a win for discrimination last week after a federal judge blocked a move that would have allowed trans kids to play sports on a team of their gender and more.

In September, Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery led a 20-state coalition in a lawsuit to stop anti-discrimination guidance from President Joe Biden. The order was issued in January and strives to prevent discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. 

Biden’s guidance challenged state laws on whether schools must allow biological males to compete on girls’ sports teams, whether employers and schools may maintain sex-separated showers and locker rooms, and whether individuals may be compelled to use another person’s preferred pronouns. 

Herbert Slatery (Credit: State of Tennessee)

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” reads Biden’s order from January. “Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.”

However, Slatery claimed in September that Biden’s order “threatens women’s sports and student and employee privacy.” To get there legally, Slatery and his coalition (including Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and more) claimed only Congress — not the president — can change “these sensitive issues” of “enormous importance.” The coalition’s complaint asserts that the claim that the order simply implements the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision on anti-discrimination is faulty.

“The agencies simply do not have that authority,” Slatery said in a statement at the time. “But that has not stopped them from trying. … All of this, together with the threat of withholding educational funding in the midst of a pandemic, warrants this lawsuit.”

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee blocked the guidance, which Slatery called “expansive and unlawful” and would have forced, among others things, the use of “biologically inaccurate preferred pronouns.”

“The District Court rightly recognized the federal government put Tennessee and other states in an impossible situation: choose between the threat of legal consequences including the withholding of federal funding, or altering our state laws to comply,” Slatery said in a statement. “Keep in mind these new, transformative rules were made without you — without your elected leaders in Congress having a say — which is what the law requires. We are thankful the court put a stop to it, maintained the status quo as the lawsuit proceeds, and reminded the federal government it cannot direct it’s agencies to rewrite the law.” 

The court ruling drew scorn from LGBTQ advocates, who were quick to point out the judge in the case, Charles Atley Jr., was appointed by former president Donald Trump. 

“We are disappointed and outraged by this ruling from the Eastern District of Tennessee where, in yet another example of far-right judges legislating from the bench, the court blocked guidance affirming what the Supreme Court decided in Bostock v. Clayton County: that LGBTQ+ Americans are protected under existing civil rights law,” Joni Madison, interim president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. “Nothing in this decision can stop schools from treating students consistent with their gender identity. And nothing in this decision eliminates schools’ obligations under Title IX or students’ or parents’ abilities to bring lawsuits in federal court. HRC will continue to fight these anti-transgender rulings with every tool in our toolbox.”

This preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the matter is resolved. The matter could get a further decision from the federal court in Tennessee, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, or the Supreme Court of the United States.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

State AG to Feds: Equity Issues Not Our Problem

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Any agency that gets federal funds for food must now investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and Tennessee’s Republican Attorney General is leading the fight against the move.  

In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) added gender identity and sexual orientation to its interpretation of Title IX. The 1972 law outlawed discrimination based on sex for any program or activity receiving federal assistance.  

The USDA said the move to include gender identity and sexual orientation is to keep its programs open to everyone, help ensure “all Americans have access to nutritious foods that promote health and well-being regardless of race, ethnicity, identity or background.” The move is also in line with President Joe Biden’s executive order in January on “preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.”   

“USDA is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity,” said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. “A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

“At the same time, we must recognize the vulnerability of the LGBTQI+ communities and provide them with an avenue to grieve any discrimination they face. We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.”

But this is wrong, according to Tennessee’s Attorney General Herbert Slatery, because agencies that don’t comply with the order will lose federal funding. So, Slatery is leading a coalition of 26 state attorneys general to stop it.  

A letter addressed to Biden about the issue was written and sent by Slatery’s office and has been signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In the letter, the attorneys argue that the new guidance is unlawful because it was issued without the input of state officials and other stakeholders that they say is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. They claim the Biden Administration misread and wrongly applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender, as a basis for the new rules. 

The USDA’s move “imposes” new and “unlawful” regulatory measures on state agencies and other agency operators that get federal help from the USDA. Slatery’s letter claims the new rules will cause “regulatory chaos that threatens essential nutritional services to some of the most vulnerable citizens.” The National School Lunch Program, the letter gives as an example, serves nearly 30 million students each day and could be in danger under the new rules. 

As attorneys general we cannot just sit on the sidelines, and we will not.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery

“This is yet another attempt by the executive branch and unelected regulators to do what only Congress is constitutionally authorized to do: change the law,” Slatery said in a statement issued Tuesday. “They intentionally misread the [Bostock v. Clayton County] to fit their social policy preferences and exclude the people and their elected representatives from the entire process. As attorneys general we cannot just sit on the sidelines, and we will not.”

The USDA said the LGBTQ community has faced “striking economic and social disparities, such as higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and nutrition insecurity. It said a U.S. Census Bureau survey found that more than 13 percent of LGBTQ respondents faced food insecurity compared to 7.2 percent of non-LGBTQ respondents. 

No one should be denied access to nutritious food simply because of who they are or how they identify.

Stacy Dean, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Undersecretary

“Whether you are grocery shopping, standing in line at the school cafeteria, or picking up food from a food bank, you should be able to do so without fear of discrimination,” said Stacy Dean, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Undersecretary. “No one should be denied access to nutritious food simply because of who they are or how they identify.”

Categories
News News Blog

TN AG: Time Has Run Out for Ban on Abortion Law

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery (Credit: state of Tennessee)

Tennessee’s 48-hour waiting period for abortions is now an unquestioned law, said the Tennessee Attorney General, as “the legal battle is over.”

Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery said Friday the window of opportunity for a review of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court has closed. The 48-hour waiting period for an abortion “is no longer subject to question,” he said.  

The law passed the Tennessee General Assembly in 2015. Later, a district court agreed with abortion providers that the law violated a woman’s right to have an abortion. The ruling stopped officials here from enforcing the law. 

State officials appealed the ruling to the full sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court reversed the lower-court judgment saying the law “is not a substantial obstacle to abortion for a large fraction of women seeking pre-viability abortions in Tennessee.” 

“This law was on the books for five years before the district court enjoined it,” Slatery said in a statement. “The Sixth Circuit took the unusual step of having the full court review the district court decision and that of its own panel.

“We are grateful that the court recognized the validity of a law passed by the people’s representatives and did not substitute its own judgment for the policy decision made by the legislature and the governor.” 

Categories
News Blog News Feature

TN AG Sues Feds Over Vaccine Mandate

The state of Tennessee sued the federal government Thursday, claiming vaccine requirements for federal contractors is “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The U.S. Department of Labor released its vaccine mandate for businesses Thursday. The rules say companies with more than 100 employees must require them to be vaccinated or pass weekly Covid-19 tests. 

The Tennessee General Assembly passed sweeping legislation last week in a special session on Covid that takes away most companies’ ability to require vaccines or masks of their employees. That legislation, however, does not cover federal contractors. 

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the government’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors.  Tennessee joins Ohio and Kentucky in the suit. 

“Unless we intervene, federal contractors in Tennessee will be forced to make sense of the mandate’s many inconsistencies that require their entire workforce be vaccinated or face potential blacklisting and loss of future federal contracts,” Slatery said in a statement. “That is simply unworkable and this lawsuit seeks to stop it.”

The attorneys worry such a mandate could create a “workforce loss” big enough to present  “a significant concern for the economies of their states and could exacerbate ongoing supply chain issues.”

They argue the mandate is unconstitutional because Congress did not give the president authority to issue it.  

”Pronouncing that his ’patience is wearing thin’ with people who choose to forgo the Covid-19 vaccine, President Joe Biden signed an unlawful executive order to compel millions of Americans who work for government contractors to receive a Covid-19 vaccine,” reads the complaint. 

For Tennessee, Slatery argues that the mandate claims to preempt state law and violates the state’s sovereign interests to set its own laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict.

Categories
Memphis Gaydar Uncategorized

TN AG: New Anti-Discrimination Guidelines Give Too Much to LGBTQ+ Community

Credit: Human Rights Campaign

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery is leading an effort by 20 U.S. state attorneys general against new anti-discrimination guidelines created by the Biden administration. The group claim the new regulations were created unfairly and go too far in giving leeway to the LGBTQ+ community. 

In a letter to President Joe Biden, the attorneys general criticize an executive order that implements a U.S. Supreme Court anti-discrimination ruling that went unheeded by the Trump administration. 

Biden’s order states “all persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.” The Human Rights Council (HRC) called it the “most substantive, wide-ranging LGBTQ executive order in U.S. history.” 

The order prohibits discrimination in the workplace, including hiring, termination, promotion, conditions of employment, benefits, and harassment. The HRC explained “for example: a bisexual woman cannot be fired from her job just because her employer learned of her sexual orientation, and a transgender man cannot be forced to wear a women’s uniform at his place of employment.”

The ruling prohibits discrimination at all federally funded educational programs, including K-12, vocational programs, and higher education programs. The HRC explained, “for example: a gay student can’t be prohibited from going to his public high school’s prom just because his date is also a boy, and a transgender girl cannot be harassed by a teacher who refuses to use her correct name because it is a feminine name.”

The order also prohibits discrimination in housing, federally funded healthcare programs (like the Affordable Care Act), and in the issuance of credit, including loans and credit cards. 

Guidance on how to enforce the order came from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Education in mid-June. Slattery and the other AGs say the new guidelines “attempt to force radical changes on nearly every employer and school across the nation.” 

Slatery

The AGs criticize Biden for ”unilaterally plunging ahead with these sweeping dictates.” No public hearings were held and the guidance document “simply appeared.” This subverted democracy as ”the states and other affected institutions and individuals have been excluded from any discussion.”

No longer, according to the Department of Education, will schools be allowed to preserve the privacy of middle school and high school students by ensuring they can use sex-specific showers, locker rooms, and restrooms.

Statement from Slatery’s office

Further, they claim the guidance goes further than the Supreme Court’s ruling, which, according to the AGs, “explicitly refrained from addressing ‘sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes” at school or work. 

The administration’s order says “children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” (Slatery once sued the Obama Administration after it issued guidance on transgender students and bathrooms.) 

”No longer, according to the Department of Education, will schools be allowed to preserve the privacy of middle school and high school students by ensuring they can use sex-specific showers, locker rooms, and restrooms,” reads the statement form Slatery’s office.

The new guidelines also warn that using incorrect pronouns for a person may be discriminatory and have legal implications. 

“If an employer fires an employee because that person was identified as male at birth, but uses feminine pronouns and identifies as a female, the employer is taking action against the individual because of sex since the action would not have been taken but for the fact the employee was originally identified as male,” reads the guidelines.

The AGs took aim at this, too, claiming the ”First Amendment protects the right to ascribe pronouns to others based on their sex.” 

They claim the “First Amendment protects the right to ascribe pronouns to others based on their sex.” 

“With respect to pronouns, the EEOC’s guidance comes across as an effort to leverage the authority of the federal government to chill protected speech disfavored by [the Biden] administration,” they wrote.

Alphonso David, president of the HRC, said the ruling has been “transformative.”

“The Bostock ruling was a landmark moment in the on-going fight for LGBTQ equality — no one should be denied a job, excluded from benefits, harassed or fired simply because of who they are or whom they love,” he said in statement in June. “It has been transformative for the LGBTQ community to know we have the right to be ourselves in the workplace.” 

The letter was led by Slatery and signed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.

Categories
News Blog News Feature

TN AG Joins Letter Against “Instagram Kids”

Instagram/Twitter

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery joined a coalition of 44 state, district, and territorial prosecutors in a Monday letter urging Facebook to abandon its plan for a version of Instagram for children under the age of 13. 

In March, Buzzfeed News uncovered the Instagram plan via an internal company memo. Facebook confirmed the plan later that month. 

Slatery panned the plan in the letter and in a statement Monday.  

“Let’s not take their word for it that this time — and with a product specifically created for children — is going to be any different.”

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery

“Facebook has a record of failing to protect the safety and privacy of children,” Slatery said. “Let’s not take their word for it that this time — and with a product specifically created for children — is going to be any different.”

The attorneys general said they were concerned that “social media can be harmful to the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of children,” that the new platform could increase cyberbullying, and online predators could use the platform to target children. 

“As recently articulated by dozens of organizations and experts, ‘Instagram … exploits young people’s fear of missing out and desire for peer approval to encourage children and teens to constantly check their devices and share photos with their followers,’ and ‘the platform’s relentless focus on appearance, self-presentation, and branding presents challenges to adolescents’ privacy and well-being,’” reads the letter. 

The prosecutors also said that children are not equipped to handle the “range of challenges” that come with having an Instagram account. Nor do they understand privacy, the letter said.  

The group also cast doubt on Facebook’s ability to protect children on their proposed Instagram platform and comply with privacy laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). For this, they pointed to Facebook’s Messenger Kids app which contained a glitch that allowed children to circumvent restrictions and join group chats with strangers.

The letter was signed by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Nebraska, Vermont, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

Categories
News Blog News Feature

Tennessee Sues Biden Administration for “Power Grab” in COVID Relief Fund

(Credit: Dreamstime)

Tennessee will sue the Joe Biden Administration for setting rules on the $3.7 billion in relief funding it wants to give the state. 

Tennessee is set to get the funds from the federal government as part of the American Rescue Plan (ARPA). But to get the COVID-19 funding, states won’t be allowed to lower taxes on their citizens for four years, according to Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III. 

Slatery joined a lawsuit with Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to challenge the mandate. The suit, filed against U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, argues that “the tax mandate unconstitutionally usurps the authority of each state’s legislature to enact beneficial tax policies.”

The states have a constitutional right to implement their own tax policy.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery

 “The states have a constitutional right to implement their own tax policy,” Slatery said in a statement. “We should not have to choose between accepting COVID-19 relief funds or surrendering to Washington’s attempt to override what only our elected officials in Tennessee are authorized to do.”

The suit calls the tax mandate “an unprecedented power grab by the federal government at a time when elected officials should be singularly focused on helping their constituents overcome the devastating effects of the pandemic. It usurps the states’ sovereign authority by coercing them into making the policy choices that a bare majority of Congress prefers, and a strictly partisan majority at that, without regard for the citizens of the states or the leaders they elect.”

“Kentuckians expect state tax policies to be set by the men and women they elect to represent them in the general assembly, and not as a result of an edict from the federal government,” Cameron said in a statement. “These COVID relief funds are essential to helping the Commonwealth and hardworking Kentuckians recover from the effects of the pandemic, and it is unconstitutional for the Biden Administration to hold the funds hostage if we don’t agree to Washington’s preferred tax policies.”

Read the entire complaint here:

Tennessee-complaintDownload
Categories
Editorial Opinion

On Following the Law

Where matters of law are concerned, it is obviously useful to have a consensus on what this or that law or legal regulation means. We say this at a time when, at the national level of government, we see diametrically opposite approaches to matters of standard legal procedure.

Take the word “subpoena,” derived from Latin roots meaning “under penalty,” as in “under penalty of law.” If you and I receive a subpoena to appear in court, we had best have our buttocks down there on a bench or we’ll likely end up sitting on a concrete slab in a jail cell. The word — and the authority behind it — has historically been regarded that way in Washington, as well. When President Nixon was suspected of running afoul of the law, several important members of his administration received subpoenas to appear before a specially appointed congressional investigating committee. They showed up. We still remember the names: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Dean, and many more. Nixon himself was never asked to testify. He resigned before the then-ongoing impeachment process could compel him to do so.

One of his successors, President Bill Clinton, did testify in his own impeachment matter, albeit voluntarily. Had he not — had he declared himself inviolable to the investigatory process — he would likely have been not only impeached (as he was), but convicted by the Senate.

Fade to today, when a president suspected of criminal behavior, along with every member of his administration, are total scofflaws to the legal process, treating legitimate congressional subpoenas as (in President Trump’s words) “cookies,” to be taken or rejected at one’s pleasure.

Slatery

It was in the shadow of such shameless contempt that the chief legal officer of the state of Tennessee, Attorney General Herbert Slatery, came to Memphis this week to address the Rotary Club, and though Slatery never addressed the national impeachment crisis, he clearly made a point of underscoring the sanctity of the legal process that is being so flagrantly violated in Washington.

Slatery said enforcing the law is not a matter of right vs. left, but of right vs. wrong. He discussed several ongoing legal cases before the state — Mississippi’s suit against Memphis and the state of Tennessee regarding the water aquifer that the Magnolia State claims for itself; the opioid crisis, in which several overlapping jurisdictions have a stake; and several pending capital cases.

With regard to the latter matter, Slatery said that the state constitution and legal precedent mandate that his office “shall” set dates to carry out the sentence of execution, not that it has free will in the matter.

Clearly, opinions differ on the viability and morality of capital punishment, and, just as clearly, the issue is always going to be thoroughly litigated. But, whatever the outcome, the attorney general’s opinion is that he has no option but to follow the law. And what’s true in a matter of life and death surely applies as well to the survival of a presidency.

Categories
News News Blog

Two From Shelby County Proposed for Execution

CREDIT: Murderpedia, Tennessee Department of Corrections

Murderpedia, Tennessee Department of Corrections

From left to right from top left: Oscar Franklin Smith, Harold Wayne Nichols, Pervis Tyrone Payne, Gary Wayne Sutton, Donald Middlebrooks, Byron Black, Farris Genner Morris, Pervis Tyrone Payne, Henry Eugene Hodges

Two of the nine men who could soon be executed by the state were convicted in Shelby County.

Late Tuesday, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery quietly requested execution dates for the nine men from the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Executions began again in Tennessee last year. The last before 2018 was in 2009. The state has executed five men since August 9th, 2018. The latest, Stephen West, was executed by lethal injection on August 15th, 2019.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to set execution dates for the nine men Slatery proposed for execution this week. All of them are now on death row at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville.

Of them, two were convicted of murder in Shelby County, one occurring in Memphis and the other in Millington. Another man was convicted of murder in nearby Madison County. All of these comprise the total of West Tennessee prisoners now considered for execution.

Caruthers

Tony Von Caruthers was convicted in Memphis for a 1994 triple homicide of Marcellos Anderson, Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker.  WREG reported that the murders began as a drug deal with Marcellos Anderson. Delois Anderson was his mother and Tucker was a teenage friend. The station said that the mother and friend were beaten, tortured, and buried under a grave dug for someone else.

Caruthers and another man were tried and convicted in the same trial. The other man was set free in 2016 after winning an appeal in the case. In February, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied a final appeal for Caruthers in the case.

 

Payne

Pervis Tyrone Payne was convicted in 1988 of the 1987 stabbing murder of Charisse Christopher and her two-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, in Millington.

Payne’s execution was set for 2007 but was put on hold when Gov. Phil Bredesen put a moratorium on executions to review Tennessee’ lethal injection protocols.

In 2016, Payne was denied a hearing to determine whether or not he was eligible for execution because he is intellectually disabled.

Morris

Hodges

Farris Genner Morris was convicted of shooting and stabbing a man and his niece to death in Madison County in 1994.

Henry Eugene Hodges was convicted of the 1990 robbery and murder of a man in Smyrna. Hodges, 24 at the time, and his girlfriend, 15 at the time, robbed and ransacked a man’s house, stole his bank PIN, and

Middlebrooks

 murdered him.

Donald Middlebrooks murdered a 14-year-old with a knife in 1987. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 1989. 

Nichols

Serial rapist Harold Wayne Nichols (aka “Red Headed Stranger”) was convicted of the

Smith

 1988 murder of a woman in Chattanooga by hitting her on the head with a board.

Oscar Franklin Smith stabbed to death his estranged wife and 

Sutton

her two teenaged sons in Davidson county in 1988.

Gary Wayne Sutton murdered a man and his sister

Black

 in Blount County in 1992.

In Davidson County, Byron Lewis Black murdered his girlfriend, Angela Clay, and her two daughters, Latoya, 9, and Lakeisha Clay, 6, in 1988.