Tennessee House Bill HB1582

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/21/26
• Refer: 2/2/26
• Engrossed: 2/19/26
• Enrolled: 4/1/26
• Passed: 4/16/26
• Chaptered: 4/24/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 37, Chapter 4, Part 1, relative to the Interstate Compact for Juveniles.

Summary

HB1582 amends Tennessee’s laws governing the Interstate Compact for Juveniles by removing the compact from the list of governmental entities subject to a specific termination provision in Title 4. The bill also adds the Interstate Compact for Juveniles to a new section stating that certain governmental entities terminate on June 30, 2034, while preserving the legislature’s ability to continue, reestablish, or restructure such entities under existing law. In practical terms, the bill updates the state’s statutory housekeeping provisions related to the compact and its sunset review framework. The underlying Interstate Compact for Juveniles, created in Title 37, remains in place; the bill does not appear to change the compact’s operational rules, but rather adjusts how it is treated under Tennessee’s general termination statutes for boards, commissions, and similar entities.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29, which governs the termination and review of governmental entities, and references Title 37, Chapter 4, Part 1, which creates the Interstate Compact for Juveniles. Its effect is to revise the statutory status of the compact within the state’s sunset/termination framework, including a June 30, 2034 termination date for the compact as listed in the new section, while preserving legislative authority to renew or restructure it. The bill does not change juvenile justice procedures directly, but it affects the legal classification and continued existence of the interstate compact entity in Tennessee law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Government Operations Committee 10-0, then passed the House on consent calendar with 93 yeas and 0 nays, and later received a unanimous 33-0 motion to adopt in the Senate. The voting history suggests general agreement that the measure was a routine statutory update rather than a substantive policy dispute.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. No committee transcript is provided, and the votes were unanimous at each recorded stage. The only possible point of legal interest is the bill’s treatment of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles under the state’s termination provisions, but the legislative history does not show disagreement over that issue. The measure appears to have been handled as a technical or administrative update.