Tennessee Senate Bill SB1523

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/26
• Engrossed: 2/19/26
• Enrolled: 4/20/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41, Chapter 21, Part 10, relative to the inmate disciplinary oversight board.

Summary

SB1523 makes a narrow technical change to Tennessee’s statutes governing state boards and commissions. The bill removes the inmate disciplinary oversight board from one section of the Tennessee Code that lists entities subject to certain general provisions, and adds that board to another section that identifies entities created by statute and treated as continuing bodies under state law. In practical terms, the measure updates the statutory classification of the inmate disciplinary oversight board created in Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-1002. It does not appear to create a new program, change inmate discipline procedures, or alter the board’s substantive duties; rather, it adjusts how the board is referenced and organized within the state’s administrative code framework.

Impact

The bill amends Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41, Chapter 21, Part 10 of the Tennessee Code. Its effect is to remove the inmate disciplinary oversight board from the list in § 4-29-247(a) and add it to § 4-29-249(a), which changes the board’s statutory placement and likely its treatment under the state’s board-continuation provisions. The affected parties are the inmate disciplinary oversight board and, indirectly, the Department of Correction and inmates subject to disciplinary review, though the bill does not itself change disciplinary standards or enforcement authority.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported and moved through the legislature with comfortable margins. It was recommended for passage in the Senate Government Operations Committee and later passed floor votes by substantial majorities, indicating broad agreement that the measure was a routine statutory update rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcript is available, and there is no evidence of organized opposition in the provided materials.

Contention

There is little visible contention in the record provided, but the only plausible point of debate would be whether the inmate disciplinary oversight board should be treated as a continuing statutory entity under the board-and-commission framework. Any concern would likely come from legislators attentive to administrative structure or correctional oversight, rather than from a dispute over inmate discipline policy itself. The recorded nay votes suggest some limited dissent, but the bill’s narrow scope and procedural nature appear to have minimized controversy.