Tennessee Senate Bill SB0791

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 16; Title 20; Title 28 and Title 29, relative to persons unlawfully present in this state.

Summary

SB0791 would amend Tennessee law to bar an “unauthorized alien” from having standing to begin or participate as a plaintiff in a civil action brought under Title 29. The bill defines “unauthorized alien” by reference to federal immigration law and requires that term to be interpreted consistently with applicable federal statutes, rules, and regulations. In practical terms, the measure targets civil lawsuits under Title 29 by limiting who may sue in Tennessee courts if they are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill is framed as an immediate-effective-date measure, meaning it would take effect as soon as it becomes law because of the stated public welfare need.

Impact

The bill would add a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 20, Chapter 1, and it would affect civil procedure and access to the courts for unlawfully present individuals in actions brought under Title 29. It does not create a new immigration offense, but it uses federal immigration status as the basis for denying standing in certain civil cases, potentially affecting plaintiffs, attorneys, and courts handling those claims.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a restrictive approach toward civil court access for unauthorized aliens, but the legislative record supplied here does not show how lawmakers or stakeholders reacted.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the use of immigration status to limit standing in state civil litigation, including whether that approach is consistent with due process, access to courts, and federal immigration law. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to align state civil procedure with immigration enforcement concerns, while opponents may argue it unfairly denies legal remedies to a class of people based solely on presence status and could invite constitutional or preemption challenges.