Tennessee House Bill HB2665

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/26
• Refer: 4/6/26
• Refer: 4/13/26
• Refer: 4/15/26
• Engrossed: 4/22/26
• Enrolled: 4/29/26
• Passed: 5/21/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter 350 of the Private Acts of 1945; as amended by Chapter 246 of the Private Acts of 1974; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to the county attorney of Haywood County.

Summary

HB2665 is a local private act affecting Haywood County’s county attorney provisions. It updates the county’s private act governing legal representation for county government by requiring the county attorney to be licensed in Tennessee, giving preference to a Haywood County resident but not requiring county residency, and requiring the attorney to take a prescribed oath before assuming office. The bill also clarifies that the county attorney serves as legal counsel to county government and advises and represents the County Commission, County Mayor, and other county officials on matters related to their official duties. The bill further expands and modernizes the county attorney’s responsibilities by expressly authorizing written legal opinions, advice on county bond issuance and sales, and preparation of related legal documents when requested. It also allows the County Commission to hire additional or specialized outside counsel when needed, and it updates outdated terminology in the private act by replacing references to the “Quarterly County Court” with “County Commission” and “County Judge” with “County Mayor.” The act is contingent on approval by a two-thirds vote of the Haywood County legislative body, making it a local-option measure rather than a statewide mandate.

Impact

HB2665 amends the private acts governing Haywood County’s legal structure, changing who may serve as county attorney and clarifying the scope of that office’s duties. It affects county governance by formalizing the county attorney’s role, authorizing outside counsel, and updating statutory language to match current county government titles. The bill does not alter general state law for all counties, but it changes the operative private act for Haywood County if locally approved.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It advanced unanimously through committee and passed floor votes without opposition, indicating general agreement on the need to update and clarify Haywood County’s county attorney provisions. The absence of recorded dissent or committee discussion suggests a routine local-government measure with little visible controversy at the state level.

Contention

No significant contention is reflected in the available record. The only potentially sensitive issue is the preference for a Haywood County resident for county attorney, balanced by the explicit statement that county residency is not required. Another possible point of interest is the authority for the County Commission to retain additional or specialized counsel, which could affect the scope of the county attorney’s role, but no opposition or debate is documented. Because the act requires local approval by a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body, any substantive disagreement would likely arise at the county level rather than in the General Assembly.