Josie Holland, Attorney

Josie Holland, Attorney Attorney Serving West Tennessee. Absolutely nothing on this page is legal advice.

No client-attorney relationship is established through the communication on this page, which may only be established through specific written contract.

06/08/2026

๐‘ณ๐’๐’”๐’” ๐’๐’‡ ๐‘ณ๐’Š๐’๐’๐’”

There are seasons in the life of a bar when the loss feels larger than the calendar can hold. This is one of those seasons.

In a short span, the Tennessee criminal defense community has had to absorb the deaths of Stephen Leffler and Gerald Skahan, while also watching Judge Chris Craft step away from the bench after a remarkable 32 years of service. These are different kinds of departures. Two are final. One is earned and welcome, but still marks the end of an era. Together, they feel like the loss of lions.

Every courthouse has its own mythology. It is built not only from verdicts and opinions, but from voices in the hallway, arguments at counsel table, stories told after court, reputations earned over decades, and the quiet examples that younger lawyers absorb before they fully understand what they are learning.

Stephen Leffler, Gerald Skahan, and Judge Craft were part of that living tradition. They were not merely participants in the criminal justice system. They helped define its character.

Leffler represented more than clients. Steve represented the hard and necessary idea that every person accused by the State is entitled to a defense worthy of the Constitution. That principle is easy to praise in speeches and difficult to live in courtrooms.

Steve lived it. He understood that criminal defense is not work for the fainthearted. It requires nerve, preparation, judgment, and the willingness to stand beside people when standing beside them is unpopular. So he did. He stood beside men the rest of society would have stoned if given the opportunity. To stand between the mob and the judge, that is the defense lawyer's role. He did it with charisma and professionalism.

Gerald Skahan, too, belonged to that rare class of lawyers whose names carried weight before they ever rose to speak. He knew the Work. He was another kind of lion: Compassionate, stylish, battle-tested, and brave. Before he ever took the bench, he had stood beside the accused as both a private defense lawyer and a public defender, learning firsthand that the people who come through criminal court are rarely defined by a single charge or a single bad day.

When he became a Shelby County General Sessions Criminal Court Judge, that experience followed him onto the bench. It made him the right person to preside over Shelby Countyโ€™s new Mental Health Court, where justice required not only authority, but patience, mercy, and imagination. Gerald understood that improving one personโ€™s life could improve the whole community. Those who knew him remembered the laughter as much as the burden, the wry wit as much as the courage, and the warmth as much as the Work.

And then there is Judge Chris Craft.

Judge Craftโ€™s retirement is not a tragedy; it is a well-earned conclusion to a career of extraordinary public service. Still, though, especially for those of us who remain, it is a loss. For 32 years, he served in Division VIII of the Shelby County Criminal Court, and his career has been described as one marked by fairness, preparation, ethics, and devotion to the rule of law.

What made Judge Craft exceptional was not merely that he knew the law. Many judges know the law. What set him apart was that he respected the work being done in front of him. He understood that a criminal courtroom is not a machine. It is a place where fear, grief, accusation, liberty, punishment, and hope all arrive at once. In that environment, temperament is not cosmetic. It is the job.

The defense bar may not always agree with a judge. We are not supposed to always agree with an impartial arbiter. The defense bar, though, remembers the judges who listened, who prepared, who ruled with care, and who treated lawyers and litigants as if the process itself mattered. Judge Craft was one of those judges.

The deaths of Stephen Leffler and Gerald Skahan, and the retirement of Judge Craft, invite us to consider what is being lost as one generation of courthouse leaders passes from daily view: We lose institutional memory. We lose stories. We lose examples of how to try a case, how to take a loss, how to win without arrogance, how to argue hard without losing decency, and how to remain human in a system that often tests humanity.

Yet, we do not lose them entirely.

Every lawyer who learned courage from Steve carries him forward. Every advocate who learned craft, grit, or dignity from Gerald extends his legacy. Every judge and lawyer who watched Judge Craft model patience, preparation, and restraint has inherited a standard.

Beyond Shelby County, the moment feels even larger. If the retirement of Judge Craft marks the closing of a chapter at 201 Poplar, the retirement of Justice Holly Kirby reminds us that this is not merely a local transition. Across Tennessee, familiar voices of judgment, scholarship, and public service are stepping away from the daily work of the law. Their departures leave us not only with gratitude, but with the uneasy awareness that institutions are carried by people.

That is what lions leave behind. Not silence. Not absence. Roars that echo.

For those of us who remain, the obligation is simple and difficult: to remember them truthfully, to speak of them generously, and to practice in a way that honors the standard they set. The courthouse will change. The voices will change. The names on the docket will change. The Work remains.

05/07/2026

๐—Ÿ๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—–๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—•๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—™๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜†

The right to vote is fundamental under the Tennessee Constitution. Tenn. Const. Art. I, ยง 5; ๐ถ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ of ๐‘€๐‘’๐‘š๐‘โ„Ž๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘ฃ. ๐ป๐‘Ž๐‘Ÿ๐‘”๐‘’๐‘ก๐‘ก, 414 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. 2013). Tennessee Constitution article IV, section 1 provides that qualified voters are entitled to vote in federal, state, and local elections held in the county or district where they reside, and that voting requirements must be equal and uniform statewide. Art. IV, ยง 1; ๐ฝ๐‘œโ„Ž๐‘›๐‘ ๐‘ก๐‘œ๐‘› ๐‘ฃ. ๐ท๐‘Ž๐‘ฃ๐‘–๐‘‘๐‘ ๐‘œ๐‘› ๐ถ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘›๐‘ก๐‘ฆ ๐ธ๐‘™๐‘’๐‘๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘› ๐ถ๐‘œ๐‘š๐‘š๐‘–๐‘ ๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘›, No. M2011-02740-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2014).

In ๐ถ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ of ๐‘€๐‘’๐‘š๐‘โ„Ž๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘ฃ. ๐ป๐‘Ž๐‘Ÿ๐‘”๐‘’๐‘ก๐‘ก, the Tennessee Supreme Court discussed the Tennessee standard that election laws must be reasonable and just and may not impose impossible or oppressive conditions on suffrage. Changing district lines during an active primary process is not a normal election regulation. It risks becoming oppressive because it disrupts candidate reliance, voter expectations, ballot administration, and the practical meaning of a voterโ€™s district.

Contrary to the statements of some politicians, this redistricting is NOT compelled by the recent Supreme Court case ๐ฟ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘–๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘Ž ๐‘ฃ. ๐ถ๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘™๐‘Ž๐‘–๐‘ . Tennessee Code Annotated ยง 20-18-105 provides a process when a court identifies defects in a redistricting plan: the court must give the General Assembly at least fifteen calendar days to remedy identified defects before imposing a substitute plan. This redistricting is discretionary, political, and opportunistic

Tennessee Code Annotated ยง 2-16-102 says the General Assembly establishes congressional districts after each federal enumeration and apportionment, and that โ€œ[t]he districts may not be changed between apportionments.โ€ Rewriting the statute does not change the problem. The legislature is changing the rule that stood in the way during the same special session in which it seeks to redraw the map.

By rewriting that statute, the legislature does not cure, but rather exposes the problem: Bad faith motivation. Changing the rules during an active election cycle violates due process and voter reliance interests. Marsha Blackburn's tweet about making Tennessee all red will likely become an exhibit to any lawsuit, since it demonstrates a desire to redistrict based on partisan gain, rather than redistricting for neutral representation purposes, like population or reflection of geographic-related community interests.

๐‘€๐‘œ๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘’ ๐‘ฃ. ๐‘†๐‘ก๐‘Ž๐‘ก๐‘’, 436 S.W.3d 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014), was a Tennessee Court of Appeals case challenging the 2012 Tennessee Senate reapportionment plan. Shelby County voters argued that the plan violated Tennessee Constitution article II, section 6 because it split more counties than necessary when drawing state senate districts. This redistricting came after the normal 10 year apportionments, but the legal standards discussed there will likely become relevant if the new map is challenged (and it will be). The court recognized that the General Assembly has primary authority over redistricting, but that courts may intervene where there are equal-protection violations, bad faith, or improper motives. ๐‘†๐‘’๐‘’ ๐‘€๐‘œ๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘’.

Judicial intervention remains available where a redistricting plan reflects equal-protection violations, bad faith, or improper motives. In the current situation, challengers could point to the timing, the mid-cycle rewrite of Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 2-16-102, public statements about partisan gain, and the targeting of Memphis as evidence of bad faith or improper motive. A free and equal election cannot mean changing the districts, changing the statute, and changing votersโ€™ political home after the election process has already begun.

๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€, ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—Ÿ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ดWhen I was in elementary school in Paris, Henry County, I remember a...
05/03/2026

๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€, ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—Ÿ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด

When I was in elementary school in Paris, Henry County, I remember a Republican teacher complaining that her vote for Congress did not really matter. Her frustration was simple: Paris had been tied to Memphis in a congressional district, and she felt like rural Henry County had been swallowed by a city with different problems, different politics, and a different sense of place.

At the time, I did not know the phrase โ€œcommunity of interest.โ€ I just understood the complaint. People want representation that feels connected to where they live.

That memory came back to me as Tennessee again debates congressional lines that would reconnect rural West Tennessee communities with pieces of Memphis. The irony is hard to miss. The same kind of district that once made rural Republicans feel politically invisible can now be used for a different partisan purpose.

The legal background is complicated, but the basic shift is not. In ๐ฟ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘–๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘Ž ๐‘ฃ. ๐ถ๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘™๐‘Ž๐‘–๐‘ , Nos. 24-109 and 24-110 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2026), the Supreme Court held that ยง 2 of the Voting Rights Act, properly construed, can sometimes justify race-conscious districting, but that ยง 2 did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority congressional district. Because ยง 2 did not require that district, the Court held that Louisiana lacked a compelling interest for the race-based map and affirmed that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court discussed disentangling race from politics. Justice Kaganโ€™s dissent in ๐ถ๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘™๐‘Ž๐‘–๐‘  described cracking as the classic form of racial vote dilution, where a cohesive minority community is split across districts and loses electoral influence even though its members can still vote.

Tennessee is essentially taking a ruling that struck down a race-conscious map in Louisiana and using it as a mandate to dismantle minority voting power in Memphis under the guise of "colorblind" districting. Tennessee law adds another wrinkle. Tennesseeโ€™s current congressional-district statute says the General Assembly establishes congressional districts after each federal enumeration and apportionment, and that the districts โ€œmay not be changed between apportionments.โ€ Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 2-16-102. The special session is not just procedural housekeeping, but rather, a political moment in which a fresh Supreme Court decision may become the legal cover for a mid-decade redraw.

Whether the voters being made politically invisible are rural Republicans in one decade or Black Memphians in another, the democratic injury remains the same. Communities are being treated like pieces on a gameboard. Paris and Memphis are both Tennessee, but they are not the same community. They do not share the same local economy, the same daily concerns, or the same civic identity. It may be efficient, and it may be politically effective. The question remains whether it's good governance.

Good governance requires representation that reflects reality, not a gerrymandered gameboard. The teacher in Paris understood that instinctively decades ago, just as the voters in Memphis understand it today. When mapmakers prioritize partisan advantage over communities of interest, they erode the basic trust that our government actually belongs to us.

*Yesterday, I wrote an article on the same subject matter containing an outdated order in ๐ถ๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘™๐‘Ž๐‘–๐‘ ; this piece contains the Court's most recent ruling.

04/29/2026

๐”๐ฉ๐๐š๐ญ๐ž: ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐‘๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ง๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ง ๐’๐ญ๐š๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ 

Back in December, I wrote that the Stateโ€™s strongest arguments were not necessarily the constitutional merits, but the threshold issues: sovereign immunity and standing.

Today, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the Davidson County Chancery Courtโ€™s temporary injunction against the deployment of the Tennessee National Guard in Memphis. Importantly, the Court did not decide whether Governor Leeโ€™s deployment violates Article III, Section 5 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court instead held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning these particular plaintiffs were not legally entitled to have the court decide the merits of their claims.

The Court analyzed the plaintiffs in categories: state legislators, local legislators, Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, and the taxpayer-standing claims of Representative Salinas and Senator Yarbro. As to the legislators, the Court held that the asserted injuries were institutional injuries to the legislative bodies, not personal injuries to the individual officials bringing suit. As to taxpayer standing, the Court noted that the trial court found no proof that Tennessee taxpayer dollars were being spent on the deployment because the Guard members were serving in Title 32 status and federally funded.

The Court also rejected the argument that its ruling means no one could ever challenge the Governorโ€™s deployment. It emphasized that its holding was narrower: these plaintiffs lacked standing. So the constitutional question remains unresolved. The Court did not bless the deployment. It did not decide whether local crime qualifies as a โ€œgrave emergency.โ€ It did not decide whether Article III, Section 5 permits this use of the Guard. It simply held that this group of plaintiffs could not get through the courthouse door on standing.

I'll even go a step further: The Court seems warm to the constitutional questions if someone with legally cognizeable injury brought suit. Even if it is a fairly predictable punt, the opinion from today is beautifully written in strikingly clear prose. The Honorable Judge Bennett writes, "Our conclusion is not that no one has standing. It is, instead, that these individuals lack standing."

๐ป๐‘Ž๐‘Ÿ๐‘Ÿ๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘ฃ. ๐ฟ๐‘’๐‘’, No. M2025-01915-COA-R9-CV, slip op. (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026).

Address

917 South Cooper Street
Memphis, TN
38104

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+19012865433

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Josie Holland, Attorney posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Featured

Share