AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 12 and Title 50, relative to employment.
HB1705 requires Tennessee state and local public employers, including counties, municipalities, metropolitan governments, state agencies, boards, institutions, and local education agencies, to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the work authorization of prospective employees. Beginning July 1, 2026, covered employers may not hire or appoint a prospective employee without verifying work authorization through E-Verify, and employers that currently use a third-party vendor for Form I-9 verification may continue that arrangement only until January 1, 2027, after which they must switch to E-Verify. The bill also bars local governments from adopting policies that conflict with these requirements.
The bill requires employers to retain documentation of E-Verify inquiry results for each verified employee for the duration of employment. It further authorizes the attorney general to investigate credible complaints that a local government or LEA has violated the law and to seek enforcement through withholding state funds, including grants, contracts, and state-shared taxes, from a noncompliant local government. If an LEA violates the law, enforcement may be directed against the local government that approves the LEA’s budget. The bill also expands the definition of local government action in Tennessee’s enforcement statute to include failures to comply with this immigration-related employment verification requirement.
Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably in the legislative process, advancing through subcommittee and committee with solid majorities and passing floor votes by comfortable margins. The voting history suggests broad support for tightening public-employer hiring compliance and aligning state and local employment practices with federal work authorization verification.
The main point of contention is likely the mandate’s reach and enforcement mechanism. Critics may object to requiring all public employers and LEAs to use E-Verify, especially where third-party I-9 systems are already in place, and to the threat of withholding state funds from local governments for noncompliance. Supporters likely view those provisions as necessary to ensure uniform immigration-related hiring compliance and to prevent local policies from undermining state law.
HB1705 amends Tennessee employment and local-government law by imposing a statewide E-Verify mandate on public employers and by strengthening state enforcement authority over local governments and LEAs. It adds new requirements to Title 50 and revises the local-government enforcement provisions in Title 4, including the definition of local government action and the remedies available to the attorney general. The bill affects state agencies, local governments, school systems, and other public bodies that hire employees, and it creates a potential fiscal penalty through withholding of state funds for violations.
The bill’s legislative path indicates generally positive sentiment, with strong committee recommendations and passage on the floor by substantial margins. The recorded votes show support across the process, though not unanimous, suggesting that while the measure was broadly acceptable to many lawmakers, a meaningful minority had reservations. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into specific arguments, but the final outcome reflects clear momentum in favor of the bill.
The most notable controversy is the requirement that all covered public employers use E-Verify rather than other hiring verification methods, especially for entities already relying on third-party Form I-9 vendors. Another likely source of disagreement is the enforcement structure, which allows the attorney general to withhold state funds from local governments and, indirectly, from LEAs through the approving local government. Opponents may see this as a significant state intrusion into local administration and budgeting, while supporters likely argue it is necessary to ensure compliance with immigration-related employment rules.