Tennessee House Bill HB0562

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/19/25
• Refer: 4/2/25
• Refer: 3/11/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 58, Chapter 2, relative to emergency powers.

Summary

HB0562 amends Tennessee’s emergency powers law to limit how state and local governments can restrict businesses and other occupations during a declared state of emergency. It defines “lawful occupation” broadly to include any lawful vocation, trade, business, profession, field of specialization, or other means of livelihood, and provides that a political subdivision or public official may not label such an occupation “non-essential” in an order, rule, or regulation in order to prohibit its operation or engagement. The bill also makes clear that the protection does not apply when a person is barred from operating because of a violation of state or federal law. In addition, it creates a private right of action for people harmed by a violation, allowing them to seek actual damages or declaratory relief against the offending political subdivision or public official. If a public official is found to have violated the provision, the official may face personal liability, and prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025, and applies only to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 58, Chapter 2, by adding a new limitation on emergency authority exercised by local governments and public officials. It would constrain the use of “non-essential” designations as a basis for shutting down lawful occupations during emergencies, while preserving enforcement actions tied to violations of other state or federal laws. The measure also exposes governments and individual officials to civil liability, including damages, declaratory relief, and fee shifting, which could affect how emergency orders are drafted and enforced.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill has generally received support, but not without opposition. It advanced through subcommittee and committee with clear majorities, and the House floor votes also showed passage with a comfortable margin, indicating broad backing for the bill’s core premise of protecting lawful work during emergencies. At the same time, the repeated nontrivial no votes show that a meaningful minority remained concerned about the scope of the restrictions and the liability provisions.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the balance between protecting economic activity and preserving emergency-management discretion. Supporters likely view the bill as preventing arbitrary shutdowns of lawful businesses and occupations during emergencies, while opponents may worry it limits the ability of state and local officials to respond quickly to public health or safety crises. The personal-liability provision for public officials and the authorization of damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees are also likely to be controversial because they increase legal exposure for government actors and could chill emergency decision-making.