Tennessee House Bill HB1971

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/11/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Engrossed: 3/31/26
• Enrolled: 4/2/26
• Passed: 4/7/26
• Chaptered: 4/23/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 1, Chapter 3 and Title 49, relative to causes of action.

Summary

HB1971 revises Tennessee law governing causes of action related to governmental conduct, with a focus on limiting and clarifying when lawsuits may be brought against the state and local governments. The bill deletes Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-121 and adds a new provision stating that a cause of action exists for an affected person seeking declaratory or injunctive relief over the legality or constitutionality of actions taken by a political subdivision, but not for damages and not to challenge the validity or constitutionality of a state statute. The bill also amends a higher-education-related provision in Title 49 so that an individual alleging a violation of that section may seek relief under § 4-21-311, which is Tennessee’s civil rights enforcement mechanism. The act includes a severability clause and takes effect upon becoming law. Its stated purpose is to preserve Tennessee’s sovereign immunity and to make clear that the General Assembly did not intend prior enactments to waive that immunity.

Impact

HB1971 changes Tennessee’s statutory framework for lawsuits involving government action by narrowing the scope of claims that can be brought and by distinguishing between local governmental entities and the state itself. It creates an express cause of action for declaratory or injunctive relief against political subdivisions, while expressly barring damages claims and challenges to state statutes under that new section. It also redirects certain claims under Title 49 to the civil rights remedy in § 4-21-311, affecting how individuals enforce rights in that context and how courts evaluate sovereign-immunity defenses.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been generally supported but not unanimously, with multiple committee and floor votes showing meaningful opposition. It advanced through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee, and both chamber floor votes, ultimately passing and becoming law. The vote margins suggest the measure was favored by a majority, but the close committee vote and substantial floor opposition indicate that lawmakers were divided over its scope and effect on litigation against government entities.

Contention

The main point of contention is sovereign immunity and whether the bill appropriately preserves or limits the ability of individuals to sue governmental bodies. Supporters appear to view the bill as a clarification that the General Assembly never intended to waive the state’s immunity, while critics likely object to restricting remedies or altering the legal landscape for constitutional and statutory challenges. Another likely area of debate is the distinction between local political subdivisions and the state, since the bill allows certain suits against local entities but expressly bars challenges to state statutes under the new cause of action.