Tennessee GOP’s Immigration Bill Will Set Up Supreme Court Fight
Republican lawmakers in the Tennessee are moving forward with legislation that would create a new state-level criminal offense for illegal immigrants who remain in the state after receiving a final federal deportation order. The measure is part of the state’s broader “Immigration 2026” policy push and is widely viewed as an intentional effort to provoke a legal showdown that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court of the United States, according to a report from Newsweek.
If passed, the bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor for individuals who have been ordered deported—or otherwise barred from entering the United States—to intentionally enter or remain in Tennessee after exhausting all legal appeals at the federal level.
Left-leaning immigration activists quickly denounced the proposal, arguing that immigration enforcement has historically been handled at the federal level.
“Established law dating back well over a century prohibits states creating their own immigration laws, but Tennessee legislators are attempting to create a state-level immigration regime with this bill that would lead to chaos and disorder throughout the country,” Spring Miller, senior legal director at the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, told Newsweek Friday afternoon.
“Language in the bill even suggests that the lawmakers themselves know this runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent, and undoubtedly, groups are prepared to fight this government overreach in the courts should it pass.”
Despite the criticism, Tennessee Republicans say the legislation reflects growing frustration among states forced to deal with the consequences of weak federal immigration enforcement. The bill is being spearheaded by Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who openly acknowledged that the proposal is designed to challenge long-standing legal precedents that restrict states from enforcing immigration laws.
“When someone has exhausted all their options, and they’ve been told to leave the country, it is illegal for them to stay, both under federal law, and if this bill passes, it would be a misdemeanor for them to enter in, or remain in, the state of Tennessee,” Lamberth told lawmakers during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
The proposal comes as several Republican-led states push back against Washington’s dominance over immigration policy. States including Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, and Oklahoma have already adopted measures modeled after Texas’ controversial enforcement law, widely known as SB 4, which criminalizes illegal entry at the state level and authorizes state authorities to enforce immigration restrictions.
Supporters of these efforts argue that states are being forced to take action as illegal immigration continues to strain public services, law enforcement, and local communities. Critics, however, claim the laws violate existing precedent, particularly the Arizona v. United States (2012) decision, which limited state authority in immigration enforcement.
When pressed on whether the Tennessee measure could run afoul of that ruling, Lamberth did not back down.
“I like our track record with the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The Republican leader pointed to the state’s recent success before the High Court, including rulings that upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-transition procedures for minors and the state’s abortion trigger law enacted after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Democrats in the legislature blasted the proposal, claiming it is unconstitutional and would waste taxpayer money on legal challenges.
“Everything that I’ve read, everyone that I’ve talked to, said that this is currently unconstitutional,” said state Rep. Gloria Johnson, according to Newsweek.
She later accused Republicans of pushing a “Stephen Miller bill … that we know is unconstitutional” at taxpayer expense.
“Instead of funding Tennesseans’ basic needs, affordable healthcare, and quality education, taxpayer resources would be used to imprison people for simply being or passing through the state and having been issued a piece of paper that they may or may not have been aware of,” Miller told Newsweek.
“Furthermore, this bill is confusing and would be incredibly hard to enforce,” she added. “There is no centralized database that tracks everyone that has received a final order of removal, and someone with a final order of removal could be in the process of adjusting their status through established legal pathways.”
Lamberth, however, defended the measure’s structure, saying lawmakers crafted the bill carefully to respect existing constitutional limits while preparing for the possibility that the Supreme Court could restore broader authority to states.
According to legal scholars cited by Newsweek, Tennessee’s move is part of a broader conservative legal strategy among Republican-led states to test the limits of federalism and potentially force the nation’s highest court to reconsider long-standing restrictions on state immigration enforcement.
With the United States continuing to grapple with immigration pressures during the second term of President Donald J. Trump, the Tennessee proposal could become one of the next major legal battles shaping the balance of power between Washington and the states.