Tennessee Immigration Law Faces New Federal Challenge After Taking Effect

A renewed federal lawsuit is challenging Tennessee’s immigration law after the law’s first operative provision took effect July 1, putting the state’s authority to impose criminal penalties tied to federal removal orders before the courts again.

The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center filed the new case on July 17, 2026. The lawsuit seeks immediate and permanent relief against Tennessee Public Chapter 771 and asks the court to treat the case as a class action on behalf of potentially affected noncitizens, according to Tennessee Lookout’s report and the plaintiffs’ complaint.

As of July 31, 2026, the reviewed court records and reporting do not show an injunction blocking enforcement. The challenged provision therefore remains in force unless a court orders otherwise.

What Tennessee’s law does

Public Chapter 771, enacted as House Bill 1704, took effect in part on July 1. The Tennessee General Assembly’s legislative record says the current provision applies to adults who intentionally fail or refuse to depart from Tennessee more than 90 days after a final federal order of removal.

The offense is a Class A misdemeanor. It is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

The statute also requires a stay of the state criminal proceeding if the person has not exhausted available federal challenges to the removal order. The stay continues while those federal remedies remain pending.

The law does not make every person with a federal removal order automatically subject to prosecution. Its conditions include adulthood, an intentional failure or refusal to depart, a final removal order and the statutory 90-day period.

The separate reentry offense is not currently operative

Public Chapter 771 also contains a separate Class A misdemeanor involving a person who has been denied admission, excluded, deported or removed from the United States and then intentionally enters, attempts to enter or is found in Tennessee.

That provision is contingent. Under the legislative record, it takes effect 30 days after either the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision overruling or narrowing Arizona v. United States in a way that authorizes states to determine unlawful presence, or Congress adopts a federal law removing the relevant preemption barrier.

Neither condition should be treated as having occurred merely because the law’s first provision took effect July 1. The current lawsuit is focused on the provision concerning intentional failure or refusal to depart after a final federal removal order.

What the renewed lawsuit asks for

The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction and permanent relief that would stop enforcement of the challenged provision. They also seek proposed class-action treatment for noncitizens who could face arrest, detention or prosecution under the law.

The complaint presents constitutional and federal-preemption arguments. Those claims are allegations and legal arguments by the plaintiffs, not findings by the court. The renewed case remains pending, and the filing does not establish that Tennessee’s law has been struck down or upheld.

Why the case returned to federal court

The July 17 filing followed an earlier challenge that was dismissed without prejudice on June 26. In the dismissal opinion, the federal court identified standing as the basis for ending the earlier case at that stage.

A dismissal without prejudice did not resolve the constitutional questions on their merits. It left open the possibility of another filing, which the July 17 lawsuit represents.

What remains in force for now

For Tennessee residents and advocates, the immediate practical point is that the law’s current provision is not shown to be blocked. Potential exposure depends on the statute’s specific requirements and the status of a person’s federal removal proceedings.

The case could determine whether Tennessee may impose its own criminal consequences on conduct linked to federal immigration orders. It also raises questions about how state enforcement interacts with federal removal proceedings and the federal government’s role in immigration enforcement.

Until a court issues an order changing the enforcement posture, the provision that took effect July 1 remains part of Tennessee law. The separate reentry offense remains contingent on a future change in federal law or Supreme Court precedent.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.