Tennessee House Bill HB1037

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

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

HB1037 amends Tennessee law to bar an “unauthorized alien” from having standing to begin or participate as a plaintiff in a civil action brought under Title 29. The bill defines “unauthorized alien” by reference to federal immigration law and requires that term to be interpreted consistently with applicable federal statutes, rules, and regulations. In practical terms, the measure would limit access to Tennessee courts for certain civil claims by people who are unlawfully present in the United States, but only for actions brought under Title 29. The bill takes effect immediately upon becoming law because it declares the public welfare requires it.

Impact

The bill adds a new section to Title 20 of the Tennessee Code and creates a new legal restriction affecting civil litigation under Title 29. It does not broadly change immigration status or criminal law, but it does affect who may sue or appear as a plaintiff in certain civil cases, potentially reducing the ability of unauthorized aliens to pursue those claims in Tennessee courts.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a restrictive approach toward civil court access for unlawfully present persons, but the surrounding legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the materials provided.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s denial of standing to unauthorized aliens in civil actions, which raises questions about access to courts, equal treatment, and the scope of state authority in matters tied to federal immigration status. Supporters would likely view it as a way to limit litigation by persons unlawfully present, while opponents could argue it unfairly blocks legal remedies and may conflict with broader principles of civil justice. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided transcripts or votes.