Tennessee Senate Bill SB1048

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Failed: 3/25/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 58, Chapter 2, relative to emergency powers.

Summary

SB1048 amends Tennessee’s emergency powers law to prohibit a political subdivision or public official from declaring a lawful occupation “non-essential” in an order, rule, or regulation during a declared state of emergency, or at any other time. The bill defines “lawful occupation” broadly to include any lawful vocation, trade, business, profession, field of specialization, or other means of livelihood that is not otherwise unlawful under state law. The bill also creates an enforcement mechanism. A person harmed by a violation may sue the political subdivision or public official for actual damages or declaratory relief, and if the defendant is a public official, the bill imposes personal liability. Prevailing plaintiffs would be entitled to litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and apply to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.

Impact

This bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 58, Chapter 2, by adding a new limitation on emergency authority exercised by local governments and public officials. It would restrict the use of emergency orders to suspend or classify lawful occupations as non-essential, while preserving the ability to restrict occupations that are already prohibited under state or federal law. The bill would also expose governments and individual officials to civil litigation, damages, declaratory relief, and fee-shifting for violations.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had some support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was recommended for passage by a 6-2 vote, but later faced significant opposition in the Senate State and Local Government Committee, where it failed 1-8. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably by supporters of limits on emergency powers and economic activity restrictions, but not by a majority of the later committee.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on government emergency authority to label occupations as non-essential, which critics may view as limiting public officials’ ability to respond to emergencies. Another likely issue is the personal liability provision for public officials, which is more aggressive than a standard governmental liability framework and could deter enforcement or invite litigation. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on protecting workers, businesses, and other lawful occupations from shutdowns or restrictions during emergencies.