AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 48 and Title 67, relative to corporate entities.
SB1956 creates a new state-law requirement directing Tennessee state agencies to deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a certification, registration, license, or permit issued to a corporate entity if the agency receives satisfactory proof that an officer, director, or employee of that entity provides material support or resources to certain terrorist-related organizations. The bill applies to domestic and foreign corporations, LLCs, LLPs, LPs, and nonprofit entities.
The bill defines the covered organizations broadly, including entities designated by the U.S. Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, specially designated nationals identified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, groups found by a U.S. court to have engaged in terrorism, and groups receiving support from a designated entity. It also defines “material support or resources” to include property, services, financial support, lodging, training, advice, transportation, personnel, and related assistance, while expressly excluding medicine and religious materials.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4 and affects the licensing and permitting authority of state agencies over corporate entities. In practice, it adds a disqualification ground tied to terrorism-related support, potentially affecting a wide range of regulated businesses and nonprofits that depend on state-issued credentials. It also incorporates federal terrorism designations and federal sanctions concepts into state administrative enforcement.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislative process, passing committee unanimously and advancing through the Senate and House with substantial majorities. The recorded votes suggest broad support for the measure’s anti-terrorism purpose, though not unanimous support on the floor. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support through votes rather than detailed debate.
The main point of contention is the breadth of the disqualification standard and how state agencies would determine whether a corporate entity has provided prohibited support, especially where the support is indirect or tied to affiliated groups. Another likely concern is the scope of the definition of “material support or resources,” which is expansive but excludes medicine and religious materials, indicating an attempt to limit overreach. The bill’s reliance on federal designations and court findings may also raise questions about due process, evidentiary standards, and administrative enforcement for affected entities.