Tennessee House Bill HB2307

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/25/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 10; Title 29; Title 30; Title 31; Title 32; Title 34; Title 35; Title 36; Title 38; Title 39; Title 46; Title 50; Title 55; Title 56; Title 58; Title 62; Title 67; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to the disposition of human remains.

Summary

HB2307 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing the disposition of human remains. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-5-509(a) to allow a required authorization or consent to be provided in either written or electronic form, replacing the prior requirement that it be written only. The caption indicates the bill is part of a broader set of statutory references related to human remains, but the operative change in the text is limited to this single provision. In practical terms, the bill modernizes the process for authorizing the disposition of remains by recognizing electronic documentation alongside paper documents. This could affect funeral homes, crematories, hospitals, families, and other parties involved in end-of-life arrangements by making it easier to document consent and reducing administrative barriers. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-5-509(a) by expanding the form of required authorization from only written to written or electronic. This updates state law to accommodate electronic records and signatures in the context of disposition of human remains, while leaving the underlying substantive requirements unchanged. The affected parties are those who must obtain or provide authorization for disposition, including funeral service providers and family members or other decision-makers.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee debate, recorded votes, or opposition, so there is no documented controversy in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical, modernization-oriented measure with a likely neutral to favorable reception. The absence of discussion suggests it may have been viewed as a straightforward administrative update rather than a policy dispute.

Contention

No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided transcripts or voting history. If any concerns existed, they would likely have centered on the reliability, authenticity, or legal sufficiency of electronic authorization for the disposition of human remains, but none are documented here. The bill’s narrow scope and immediate-effect clause suggest it was intended as a practical fix rather than a contested policy change.