Tennessee Senate Bill SB1971

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7; Title 8; Title 38; Title 50; Title 62 and Title 66, relative to the Tennessee Private Workplace Due Process and Warrant Protection Act.

Summary

SB1971 creates the “Tennessee Private Workplace Due Process and Warrant Protection Act,” a set of rules governing immigration enforcement actions in private workplaces. The bill defines a private workplace as a business location or non-public area not open to the general public, and it defines federal immigration authority to include agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It then requires state and local law enforcement agencies to have a valid judicial warrant before assisting, participating in, or facilitating immigration enforcement inside a private workplace. The bill also states that administrative warrants, civil detainers, and notices from federal immigration authorities are not enough to authorize entry into non-public workplace areas. It bars employees without actual authority over the premises from consenting to enforcement entry, and it protects business owners, managers, and employees from being penalized or retaliated against under state or local law for refusing access without a judicial warrant. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development would be required to create and distribute a model notice explaining these rights to employers and workers.

Impact

If enacted, SB1971 would add a new chapter to Title 38 of the Tennessee Code and limit how state and local agencies may cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in private workplaces. It would prohibit the use of state or local resources, records, personnel, or facilities for workplace immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, make evidence obtained in violation of the chapter inadmissible in state or local proceedings, and allow affected businesses or individuals to seek declaratory or injunctive relief. The bill expressly preserves federal immigration enforcement conducted with a valid judicial warrant and does not apply to public areas of businesses.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a property-rights and due-process protection for businesses and workers, emphasizing constitutional search protections and limits on coercive enforcement tactics. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The overall tone of the bill itself is strongly protective of private employers and skeptical of warrantless immigration enforcement in workplaces.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s restriction on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, especially the rule that state and local agencies may not assist without a judicial warrant and that administrative warrants or detainers are insufficient. Supporters would likely view this as a safeguard for Fourth Amendment rights, property rights, and workplace autonomy, while critics may argue it could hinder immigration enforcement and limit coordination with federal authorities. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s invalidation of consent by employees without actual authority over the premises and its exclusionary-rule-style remedy making unlawfully obtained evidence inadmissible in state or local court.