Tennessee bill creating immigration crime clears first hurdle

As part of a slate of bill targeting immigrants, Tennessee Republican lawmakers passed a measure in subcommittee creating a state crime for defying a federal deportation order. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

A Tennessee bill establishing a state crime for defying a federal deportation order passed a House subcommittee Wednesday despite questions about its constitutionality.

House Bill 1704, sponsored by House Majority Leader William Lamberth of Portland, passed the Criminal Justice Subcommittee on a 6-2 party-line vote with Republican lawmakers in control.

The measure, part of Republicans’ Immigration 2026 slate formed in cooperation with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, would make it a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail to remain in Tennessee following a final order of removal under federal law or to re-enter the state after being deported.

Because of questions about its constitutionality, the bill contains a “trigger” mechanism that would kick in depending on a change in federal law or a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Arizona v. United States, which determined that federal law trumps state immigration law. 

“This common-sense legislation respects constitutional boundaries while ensuring we are prepared if states’ authority is restored,” Lamberth said in a statement. 

The bill contains a section dealing with due process that would put off criminal proceedings until federal appeals or legal challenges to deportation or removal are exhausted.

Democratic Rep. Gabby Salinas of Memphis said afterward she wanted to ask questions about the bill’s potential costs but was cut off by a procedural maneuver. She was told later she would get another chance when the measure goes before the House Judiciary Committee Feb. 18.

Salinas called the bill’s handling “careless” because state courts would have to take the caseload from federal courts, adding expenses to the state budget.

“We need to know that and be prepared for it if and when it happens,” Salinas said. 

A state analysis of the bill’s fiscal impact says the cost would not be significant, in part, because it assumes a person with a final federal removal order would not be affected by the state law due to “current federal law and existing participation of many law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.”