Tennessee House Bill HB0609

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 16; Title 20; Title 28 and Title 29, relative to persons unlawfully present in this state.

Summary

HB0609 would amend Tennessee law to bar an “unauthorized alien” from having standing to begin or participate as a plaintiff in any civil action in the state. The bill defines “unauthorized alien” by reference to federal immigration law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act, and directs that the term be interpreted consistently with applicable federal statutes, rules, and regulations. In practical terms, the measure would create a categorical limitation on access to Tennessee courts for people who are unlawfully present in the United States, at least in the role of plaintiff in civil cases. The bill does not create a new criminal offense or immigration enforcement mechanism; instead, it changes who may invoke the state civil court system as a claimant.

Impact

The bill would add a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 20, Chapter 1, affecting civil procedure and standing rules in state courts. It would likely be relevant to attorneys, litigants, and courts evaluating whether a plaintiff has legal capacity to sue, and it could affect civil claims brought by undocumented immigrants regardless of the underlying subject matter. Because the bill ties its definition to federal immigration law, state courts would need to apply federal-law concepts when determining whether a person is an unauthorized alien.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive approach to civil court access for unlawfully present persons, which would typically draw support from proponents of tighter immigration-related limits and criticism from those concerned about access to justice and equal treatment in the courts.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether denying standing to unauthorized aliens is an appropriate use of state civil law or an impermissible barrier to judicial access. Supporters would likely argue the bill enforces immigration-related policy and limits court access for persons unlawfully present, while opponents would likely contend that it sweeps too broadly, may interfere with legitimate civil claims, and could raise fairness or constitutional concerns. Another likely issue is the bill’s reliance on federal immigration status determinations, which may create practical and legal questions for state courts.