Tennessee’s felony law when local officials vote for ‘sanctuary’ policies is ruled unconstitutional

Tennessee Court Strikes Down Law Criminalizing Officials Who Vote for “Sanctuary Policies”

A Tennessee law that threatened local elected officials with felony charges for voting in favor of immigration “sanctuary policies” has been declared unconstitutional after the state attorney general declined to defend it in court.

Nashville Chancellor Russell Perkins formalized the decision Wednesday by signing an agreed order involving Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office, the local district attorney, and seven Nashville-Davidson County metro council members who challenged the controversial provision in court.

The ruling represents a significant victory for local governance in Tennessee, where Republican lawmakers had pushed through increasingly stringent anti-immigration measures in recent years. The law had established potential Class E felony charges—carrying prison sentences of up to six years—for any local official who voted to adopt policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Attorney General Skrmetti, despite being a Republican himself, had signaled for months that his office would not defend the provision. In September, he publicly acknowledged that the Constitution provides “absolute immunity for all legislative votes, whether at the federal, state, or local levels,” even while maintaining that Tennessee cities and counties are prohibited from enacting sanctuary laws.

“This settlement affirms a basic American principle: the government cannot prosecute you for how you vote,” said Council member Clay Capp, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “Tennessee tried to gag local officials with threats of prison time, but the Constitution doesn’t allow that.”

The law was part of a broader immigration enforcement package passed by Tennessee’s Republican-dominated legislature and signed by GOP Governor Bill Lee in early 2023. The legislation aimed to bolster the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities by ensuring local cooperation with federal authorities like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The now-invalidated provision specifically targeted local officials who might vote for policies restricting how local law enforcement could interact with federal immigration authorities or limiting the information they could share about individuals’ immigration status.

Republican legislative leaders had staunchly defended the penalty despite early warnings from legislative counsel that it likely violated constitutional protections. House Majority Leader William Lamberth had dismissively called it “the easiest felony in the world to avoid,” suggesting officials could simply refrain from supporting sanctuary policies.

The legal challenge was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which celebrated the ruling as a vindication of democratic principles. The decision ensures that Tennessee’s elected officials can represent their constituents’ interests “without looking over their shoulder at criminal penalties,” according to Capp.

This case highlights the ongoing tension between state and local governments over immigration enforcement, an issue that has become increasingly partisan across the country. Since 2019, Tennessee has explicitly prohibited sanctuary cities, with non-compliant local governments facing the loss of state economic development funding.

The court’s ruling does not overturn Tennessee’s prohibition on sanctuary policies themselves, but rather invalidates the mechanism that would have criminalized elected officials for voting in favor of such policies. Local governments in the state still face potential financial penalties if they implement sanctuary policies.

Immigration enforcement has been a contentious issue nationwide, with many conservative states passing laws aimed at increasing cooperation with federal authorities, while some progressive localities have sought to limit their involvement in immigration enforcement, citing concerns about community trust, resource allocation, and civil liberties.

The ruling represents a significant boundary on how far states can go in compelling local officials to comply with state immigration priorities, establishing that while states may set policies, they cannot criminalize local officials for their legislative votes.