Tennessee Senate Bill SB2274

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 10; Title 29; Title 30; Title 31; Title 32; Title 34; Title 35; Title 36; Title 38; Title 39; Title 46; Title 50; Title 55; Title 56; Title 58; Title 62; Title 67; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to the disposition of human remains.

Summary

SB2274 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing the disposition of human remains. Specifically, it amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-5-509(a) to allow a required written authorization to be provided either in writing or electronically, rather than only in written form. The bill does not create a new program or regulatory scheme; it updates an existing consent/documentation requirement to reflect electronic communications and recordkeeping. The measure appears to be administrative in nature and focused on modernizing the legal process for handling human remains. By recognizing electronic authorization, it may make it easier for families, funeral service providers, and other authorized parties to complete necessary paperwork promptly, especially when physical signatures or in-person exchanges are difficult.

Impact

The bill amends a single provision in Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Tennessee Code, changing the form of authorization accepted for the disposition of human remains from only written to written or electronic. This affects the legal requirements for funeral directors, cremation/burial arrangements, and any parties who must provide authorization under the statute, while leaving the underlying substantive rules unchanged.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of controversy or opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to have been viewed as a practical, low-conflict modernization measure intended to streamline an existing process.

Contention

There are no documented points of contention in the provided materials. If any concerns existed, they would likely have centered on the reliability, authenticity, or legal sufficiency of electronic authorization compared with a traditional written document, but no such objections appear in the available transcripts or vote history.