Tennessee Senate Bill SB1731

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Engrossed: 2/23/26
• Enrolled: 3/13/26
• Passed: 3/26/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 27, Chapter 1, relative to appeals.

Summary

SB1731 expands the state’s ability to appeal certain trial-court rulings immediately, without waiting for a final judgment. Under the bill, Tennessee may appeal as of right from interlocutory orders that grant, continue, modify, or refuse to dissolve an injunction against the state or a state official; that deny sovereign immunity to the state or a state official; that deny qualified immunity to a state official; or that deny a state motion to dismiss in cases challenging the constitutionality of state law or the constitutionality or lawfulness of an executive order, administrative rule, or other governmental action. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 27, Chapter 1, which governs appeals, by replacing Section 27-1-101. It also includes a severability clause and takes effect immediately upon becoming law. In practical terms, the measure gives the state a broader and faster path to appellate review in cases involving injunctions and immunity defenses, especially in constitutional and administrative-law disputes.

Impact

SB1731 changes Tennessee appellate procedure by creating additional interlocutory appeal rights for the state and state officials. It affects litigation involving injunctions, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, constitutional challenges to state law, and challenges to executive orders, administrative rules, or other governmental actions. The bill is likely to influence how quickly these cases move through the courts and may reduce the chance that state defendants must litigate to final judgment before obtaining appellate review.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislative process, passing the Senate Judiciary Committee and advancing on the Senate floor with majority support. At the same time, the recorded floor votes show meaningful opposition, indicating that while the measure had enough support to pass, it was not unanimous and drew concern from a substantial minority of legislators. The overall sentiment suggests support for strengthening the state’s litigation posture, balanced by skepticism about expanding state appeal rights.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on whether the state should receive broader immediate appeal rights in cases involving injunctions and immunity defenses, and whether that expansion could delay relief for plaintiffs or increase litigation burdens. Opponents may have viewed the bill as tilting the procedural playing field in favor of the state, particularly in constitutional and administrative challenges. Supporters likely argued that the bill protects state sovereignty and prevents state officials from being forced to continue litigation after a potentially erroneous denial of immunity or dismissal.