logo
Leaders speak on ruling that cuts Metro Council in half

Leaders speak on ruling that cuts Metro Council in half

Yahoo05-06-2025
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — On Tuesday, the state Court of Appeals found 'the Small Government Efficiency Act' constitutional and House Majority Leader William Lamberth applauded the decision.
In 2023, the state legislature passed House Bill 48, which limited the number of metropolitan councilmembers to 20. The law was seen as retribution against Metro Council's decision not to support hosting the 2024 Republican National Convention.
Last July, a Nashville court ruled that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause of the Home Rule Amendment to the state constitution. Mayor Freddie O'Connell and Metro Councilmembers celebrated the decision. The ruling prevented the law from going into effect. However, a three-judge panel in the state's Court of Appeals found the law to be constitutional and reversed the lower court ruling, allowing it to go into effect.
PREVIOUS: Metro Council could be downsized following latest appeals court ruling
Lamberth, who sponsored the House version of the law, added that Republicans would 'continue to cut waste at all levels of government' in a social media post Tuesday. Senator Bo Watson (R-Hixson) also applauded the ruling.
'[The] ruling is a win for efficient and effective governing,' Watson said in a statement provided to News 2. 'The law places restrictions on the size of metro government councils and is intended to improve government efficiency – a key focus of conservatives in the Tennessee General Assembly. The Court of Appeals affirmed what we have always believed, that the legislature constitutionally has the authority and responsibility to ensure government continues to best serve Tennesseans.'
News 2 spoke with attorney Brandon Smith, currently a partner at Holtzman Vogel and the former chief of staff for Tennessee Attorney General Johnathan Skrmetti, about the decision — and he said he agrees.
'When a city becomes ungovernable and turns to taxpayers for bailouts, someone has to put the brakes on,' Smith said. 'The efficiency found from a smaller council — Nashville's council is currently the third largest in the country, just behind Chicago and New York, and it's been this size since the county was officially consolidated in the early 60s. It's time for some needed change.'
As of publication, Metro Council has 35 district members and five at-large members, which boils down to each district representing roughly 20,000 people. Some worry about what cutting that representation in half would look like — especially when considering largely-minority areas.
'I really think it's going to hurt those communities, but it's going to hurt all communities because you're going to have districts that are going to be combined,' Antoinette Lee, Metro Councilmember for District 33, told News 2. 'To me, a plus for Metro — you did not have to be rich or a lawyer or be well-endowed financially to be on the Council because you could work your regular job and you can do this. That is going to be very challenging now with huge areas.'
'Antioch bows to no council member': Some constituents call for Metro Councilmember's resignation following immigration remarks
As of publication, Metro Councilmembers get paid $25,000 dollars each year. This move could mean having to pay council members to go full-time to cover larger districts.
Vice Mayor Angie Henderson said the math all boils down to how many of the 20 council members will be 'at large.'
'Why this bill was filed at the state and kind of the process that we're going through — I personally feel that the kind of call for efficiency and effectiveness was somewhat specious,' Henderson told News 2. 'I do think it was targeted legislation and that we can't just say by virtue of our size that that's inherently a bad thing.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Newsmax reaches $67M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in defamation case
Newsmax reaches $67M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in defamation case

Politico

time35 minutes ago

  • Politico

Newsmax reaches $67M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in defamation case

The voting system manufacturer claimed the news channel made false statements about the company. News anchors work at Newsmax's booth during the 2024 Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 16, 2024. | Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images By Jacqueline Munis 08/18/2025 12:45 PM EDT Conservative-leaning cable news channel Newsmax agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit over false election claims that the 2020 election was rigged. Dominion Voting Systems filed its lawsuit against Newsmax and several other defendants in 2021, seeking $1.6 billion in damages. The settlement avoids a trial that was set to begin in October. 'We are pleased to have settled this matter,' a Dominion spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO.

Newsmax Will Pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 Million—Settlement For 2020 Election Fraud Case
Newsmax Will Pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 Million—Settlement For 2020 Election Fraud Case

Forbes

time3 hours ago

  • Forbes

Newsmax Will Pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 Million—Settlement For 2020 Election Fraud Case

Newsmax confirmed Monday it will pay $67 million to settle Dominion Voting Systems' defamation case arguing the conservative news network knowingly made false claims about Dominion's voting machines, the latest in a string of high-dollar settlements paid out by companies who falsely linked voting machines to fraud in the 2020 election—just as President Donald Trump continues to push the claims. News anchors work at Newsmax's booth during the second day of the 2024 Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 16, 2024. AFP via Getty Images Newsmax said it will pay $67 million to Dominion Voting Systems in installments over the next three years—far lower than the $1.6 billion the voting machine company sought in damages when it initially sued Newsmax in 2021. Dominion sued Newsmax alleging the right-wing news network pushed claims tying the company's voting machines to election fraud despite knowing those claims were false, one of a number of lawsuits brought by Dominion and rival voting company Smartmatic following the 2020 election. The case had been set to go to trial, with the Delaware judge overseeing the case finding in April that Newsmax made false claims about Dominion and broadcast information about the voting company that 'would likely cause reasonable viewers to think significantly less favorably about Dominion than if the viewers knew the truth.' Newsmax said Monday it still denies its reporting was defamatory, claiming its reporting was 'fair' and 'balanced' and the network 'believed it was critically important for the American people to hear both sides of the election disputes that arose in 2020.' The network decided to settle the case because it determined the court overseeing the case 'would not provide a fair trial wherein the company could present standard libel defenses to a jury,' Newsmax claimed Monday. The settlement comes after Newsmax also settled Smartmatic's case against the news network in September 2024 for an undisclosed amount. More than $800 million. That's how much Dominion has won as a result of settlements in its defamation cases, including the voting company's $787.5 million settlement with Fox News. News Peg News of the multimillion-dollar settlement came hours after President Donald Trump continued to assert claims about voting machines being tied to election fraud, despite those claims repeatedly proven as false. The president claimed on Truth Social on Monday he would 'lead a movement' against mail-in ballots and some voting machines, which he claimed without evidence are 'Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial.' Court filings in Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election—which has now been dropped—previously suggested Trump privately does not believe the fraud claims regarding voting machines. The president allegedly 'mocked' claims made by attorney Sidney Powell tying voting machines to fraud, Smith claimed, with Trump likening the fraud claims to 'Star Trek.' Forbes Trump Announces 'Movement' Against Mail-In Ballots 'Scam' By Sara Dorn Forbes Smartmatic Settles With Newsmax: Here's Where It And Dominion's Other Lawsuits Stand By Alison Durkee

Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?
Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?

Newsweek

time4 days ago

  • Newsweek

Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Legal analysts weighed in on whether first lady Melania Trump's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit threat against Hunter Biden has merit. Why It Matters Trump threatened to file a lawsuit against Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, accusing him of making "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" during an interview in which he claimed Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband, President Donald Trump. If she follows through with that threat, the case could test the limits of defamation law involving high-profile individuals such as the first family. The Trump administration has been under scrutiny over its handling of a trove of documents and files related to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in a New York federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking. There have long been rumors of an Epstein "client list," and Trump campaigned on greater transparency on the case. However, Trump's Justice Department has not released those files, fueling political backlash against him. What To Know Hunter Biden made those claims about Melania Trump during an interview with journalist Andrew Callaghan earlier this month, citing an article from The Daily Beast based on claims by Trump biographer Michael Wolff. The Daily Beast retracted that story after receiving a letter from the first lady's lawyer challenging its headline and framing. Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the letter to Hunter Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, on August 6, 2025, reported Fox News Digital. He said Biden's comments are "extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums." First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024. First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, an interview with Callaghan on Thursday, Biden declined to apologize, saying, "F*** that. That's not going to happen." Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that in theory, Melania Trump has a "strong case against Hunter Biden" if his statement was indeed false. "As a public figure, the first lady would have to prove malice, that the younger Biden knew the statement was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But if Epstein did not introduce the president and first lady, that would not be difficult to prove," Rahmani said. If the first lady files the lawsuit, Biden would likely raise First Amendment arguments, including that political speech receives strong free speech protections. Practically speaking, however, Rahmani said he does not believe Melania Trump will file. If she does, she and her lawyers may look for a quick settlement. "The president has been very litigious when it comes to these types of cases, but truth is an absolute defense to defamation. A civil complaint puts how Donald and Melania met and their relationship with Epstein, if any, at issue," Rahmani said. "That means the president and first lady would have to sit for a deposition and answer questions about Epstein. Hunter may dig in his heels and push the case to trial or the brink, like he did with his criminal cases." A trial about the Trumps and Epstein would be a "circus," and no one wants to be associated with Epstein, Rahmani said. However, former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu said he believes Melania Trump does not have a strong case against Hunter Biden. "It's pretty tough for a public figure like a first lady to be able to claim defamation," Wu said. The case could also be difficult to prove because the statements originate from Wolff's book, he said. She would not only have to prove that the claim is false, but that Hunter Biden knew or should have known it was false. "It would be different if he was the only person starting this rumor or something, but given that there's been other people—it may be factually inaccurate, but there are other sources publicly available—it becomes more of a defamation suit based on the idea you're not allowed to reference other publicly reported stories," Wu said. He added that a defamation trial would not "be very helpful at all" to the scrutiny the Trump administration has faced over Epstein. What People Are Saying Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, wrote in his notice to Hunter Biden: "Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer." Hunter Biden said on Channel Five: "What I said was what I have heard and seen reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when The New York Times, I think, Annie Carney and Maggie Haberman reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time. "And then I think excerpted in a book that was published in Vanity Fair, and I think it's been repeated by journalists and authors since then. But the primary source was the interviews that Michael Wolff has been conducting, in which he has, actually, tapes of I think hours and hours of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know, fact of the matter is that, you know, I don't think that these threats of a lawsuit add up to anything other than a design destruction because it's not about who introduced whom to who. I don't know how that in any way rises to the level of defamation to begin with." Nick Clemmens, an aide to Melania Trump, previously told Newsweek: "First lady Melania Trump's attorneys are actively ensuring immediate retractions and apologies by those who spread malicious, defamatory falsehoods. The true account of how the first lady met President Trump is in her best-selling book, Melania." What Happens Next Whether Melania Trump will end up filing the lawsuit against Hunter Biden is yet to be seen. If so, it would garner significant attention while testing the First Amendment and defamation law.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store