Tennessee House Bill HB1202

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/12/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 40 and Chapter 716 of the Public Acts of 2024, relative to law enforcement.

Summary

HB1202 would require Tennessee law enforcement agencies and officials to communicate with federal immigration authorities about the immigration status of any person who has been arrested for a criminal offense, consistent with federal law governing cooperation with immigration enforcement. The bill also directs agencies to cooperate with federal officials in identifying, apprehending, detaining, or removing individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. The bill creates two express exceptions: it would not apply to school resource officers regarding the immigration status of students assigned to their schools, and it would not apply to people who have not been arrested, including victims and witnesses who come into contact with law enforcement. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Section 7-68-105 and related law-enforcement provisions to make immigration-status communication with federal authorities mandatory for arrested individuals, rather than discretionary. It would also authorize enforcement through a civil penalty of up to $1,000 against a noncompliant law enforcement agency, with actions brought by the attorney general and reporter. The measure primarily affects local and state law enforcement agencies, while preserving limited carve-outs for school settings and for victims or witnesses who are not arrested.

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 bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-enforcement stance on immigration cooperation and a preference for mandatory participation by law enforcement agencies. The absence of recorded discussion prevents a reliable assessment of broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s stated policy direction.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern immigration enforcement policy, local law-enforcement discretion, and the scope of cooperation with federal authorities. Supporters would likely favor mandatory reporting and cooperation to aid immigration enforcement, while opponents may object to the requirement as an unfunded or burdensome mandate, or as a policy that could discourage victims and witnesses from interacting with police. The school resource officer exception and the exclusion for victims and witnesses suggest sensitivity to concerns about school safety and community policing, but the bill still imposes a compliance obligation backed by a civil penalty.