On February 12, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its February docket in Nashville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page (https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts).
Beginning at 9:00 am CST, the Court will hear the following three cases:
• Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al. v. Bill Lee et al. – The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) has a governing council comprised of forty members. In 2023, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a law that, among other requirements, imposed a twenty-person limit on the size of legislative bodies for counties with metropolitan governments. The constitutionality of the law was immediately challenged and the trial court determined that although certain aspects of the law were moot, other aspects violated two provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. First, the trial court found that the law violated what is known as the Local Legislation Clause, which generally prohibits legislation that affects a local entity without that entity’s approval. Second, the trial court found that the law violated what is known as the Exemption Clause, which places a twenty-five-member cap on the size of county legislative bodies but exempts metropolitan governments from that cap. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, concluding that the law was constitutional. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Metro’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the lawsuit is entirely moot and, if not, whether the legislation comports with the requirements of the Local Legislation Clause and the Exemption Clause.
• Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Bill Lee et al. – Tennessee law provides for the creation of airport authorities by certain populous cities or counties, including the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”). In 2023, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a law that changed the makeup and terms of the governing body of any airport authority for a county having a metropolitan form of government and a population of more than 500,000. The Metro Nashville Airport Authority was the only one that met the qualifications. Metro filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. The trial court determined that the law violated multiple provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. In particular, the trial court found that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause. The trial court also found that the law violated what is known as the Anti-Ripper Clause, which generally prohibits shortening the term of certain government officials. Lastly, the trial court found that certain provisions of the law violated equal protection guarantees. The Court of Appeals concluded that the law comported with equal protection guarantees, but the court agreed that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the law comports with the requirements of the Local Legislation Clause and the Anti-Ripper Clause.
• The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System v. UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc. d/b/a AmeriChoice. – AmeriChoice is a managed care organization under TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program. As such, AmeriChoice serves as insurer for numerous Tennesseans. Erlanger is a hospital system, but it was not a provider in AmeriChoice’s network. Nevertheless, Erlanger was required by federal law to provide emergency services to patients covered by AmeriChoice up to the point the patient was stabilized, for which Erlanger would be paid. After stabilization, however, AmeriChoice was responsible for payment only if the medical services were pre-approved. In 2009, Erlanger sought payment for post-stabilization services under a theory of unjust enrichment. The trial court granted AmeriChoice summary judgment, finding that Erlanger could not show that AmeriChoice had a legal obligation to pay for the medical services at issue. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the lack of a legal obligation to pay did not bar the claim for unjust enrichment. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted AmeriChoice’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether AmeriChoice met its burden under the summary judgment standard with respect to the elements of an unjust enrichment claim.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and file any required requests with:
Samantha Fisher
Communications Director
Administrative Office of the Courts