AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7 and Title 49, relative to discriminatory preferences.
SB1713 addresses Tennessee’s restrictions on the use of discriminatory preferences in state and local government and in public higher education. The bill requires the executive head of each covered state department, county government, municipal government, metropolitan government, and public institution of higher education to file an annual attestation with the comptroller of the treasury beginning January 1, 2027, and every year thereafter, confirming compliance with the applicable nondiscrimination provisions.
The bill also expands enforcement authority by allowing the attorney general and reporter to investigate allegations that a state department, agency, or other unit of state government is violating the referenced anti-discriminatory-preference laws, including efforts to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion through prohibited preferences. In practical terms, the measure adds a reporting and oversight layer to existing restrictions in Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 49, and it may affect how state agencies, local governments, and public colleges document and defend their hiring, contracting, admissions, or program practices.
SB1713 amends multiple sections of Tennessee law to create annual compliance attestations for state, county, municipal, metropolitan, and public higher education entities, all submitted to the comptroller of the treasury. It also authorizes attorney general investigations into alleged violations of state laws prohibiting discriminatory preferences, including those tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The bill therefore increases administrative oversight and potential legal scrutiny for public employers and institutions covered by these statutes.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support, advancing through committee and floor votes with clear majorities. It was recommended for passage in the Senate State & Local Government Committee and later passed on third consideration, then concurred in the House amendment. The vote margins suggest the measure was supported by most lawmakers, though not unanimously, indicating some reservations remained.
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and whether those efforts could be construed as prohibited discriminatory preferences. Supporters likely view the measure as a compliance and enforcement tool to ensure neutrality in public institutions, while opponents may see it as expanding state oversight in a way that could chill DEI-related policies or programs. The inclusion of attorney general investigative authority and annual attestations likely raised concerns among public agencies and higher education institutions about administrative burden and legal exposure.