Tennessee House Bill HB1557

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/21/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26
• Passed: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 63, Chapter 4, relative to the board of chiropractic examiners.

Summary

HB1557 amends Tennessee’s laws governing the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The bill removes the board from one of the statutory lists of state entities in Title 4, Chapter 29 and adds it to another list that identifies boards and commissions subject to periodic review and reauthorization. In practical terms, the measure updates the board’s placement within Tennessee’s sunset/review framework rather than changing the board’s licensing or disciplinary powers. The bill is a technical government-operations measure tied to the board created under Title 63, Chapter 4. It does not appear to alter the substantive regulation of chiropractors, but it does affect how the board is categorized under state law and how it is maintained within the state’s administrative structure. The act takes effect upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 63, Chapter 4 by deleting the Board of Chiropractic Examiners from one statutory subsection and adding it to another that governs entities subject to review and continuation. This changes the board’s status in state law for administrative oversight purposes, while leaving the underlying chiropractic licensing statutes intact. The primary affected parties are the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, licensed chiropractors, applicants, and the state agencies responsible for sunset review and board administration.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, was placed on the consent calendar, and then passed the House floor by a wide margin without recorded opposition. The voting history suggests the measure was treated as a routine administrative update rather than a contested policy change.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. No committee transcript excerpts are provided, and the votes show no meaningful opposition. If any concern existed, it likely would have centered on the board’s placement within the state’s review/reauthorization framework, but the unanimous committee support and consent-calendar passage indicate broad agreement on the bill’s technical nature.