Tennessee House Bill HB1032

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter __ of the Public Acts of 2025 (1st Ex. Sess. – SB 6002 / HB 6001); and Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8 and Title 49, relative to education.

Summary

HB1032 amends Tennessee education law to require immediate notification when an immigration officer is present on the grounds of a public school or public charter school. The notice must be given by the director of schools for an LEA or the director of a public charter school to all enrolled students, parents, educators, employees, and contractors. The bill defines “immigration officer” broadly to include state, local, and federal law enforcement officers enforcing immigration law, including ICE and CBP officers. The bill also states that any policy adopted to carry out this notification requirement is not a “sanctuary policy” and is not subject to penalties associated with sanctuary policies under Tennessee law. It expressly shields local boards of education, charter school governing bodies, directors, and employees from punishment for adopting or enforcing the required notification policy. The act would take effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

HB1032 would add a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 3, creating a statewide school-notification requirement tied to the presence of immigration enforcement officers. It also interacts with existing Tennessee sanctuary-policy provisions in Titles 4 and 7 by clarifying that compliance with this school-notification mandate does not count as adopting a sanctuary policy and does not trigger related penalties. The practical effect is to impose a new administrative duty on school systems and charter schools while limiting legal exposure for officials who implement it.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan alignment in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-enforcement stance on immigration-related school access and notification, while also attempting to reassure school officials that they will not be penalized for complying. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative discussion, only inferred from the bill’s structure and purpose.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the balance between immigration enforcement and school-community trust. Supporters would likely view the bill as promoting transparency and parental awareness when immigration officers are on campus, while critics may argue it could chill attendance, increase fear among immigrant families, or disrupt school operations. Another likely issue is the broad definition of “immigration officer,” which includes federal, state, and local officers enforcing immigration law, potentially raising questions about how schools identify such officers and when notification is required.