AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 7; Title 10; Title 38; Title 39 and Title 40, relative to immigration.
SB2390 would create new requirements for local law enforcement agencies in Tennessee that house people under federal detention agreements, such as intergovernmental service agreements or similar contracts with federal immigration authorities. The bill requires those agencies to disclose, within 24 hours of a request, basic identifying and location information about a detained person to the detainee, their attorney, immediate family members, or a court, unless the agency makes a written, reviewable determination that disclosure would create an imminent safety threat. It also requires reasonable access to confidential legal visits, legal phone calls, and family or personal visits, with access no more restrictive than that provided to other detainees in the same facility.
The bill further prohibits retaliation against detained persons for requesting information, seeking counsel or family access, or pursuing legal action related to detention conditions. It authorizes a detained person or their attorney to seek declaratory or injunctive relief and recover attorneys’ fees and costs if they prevail. The measure expressly states that it does not require release from custody, does not regulate federal immigration enforcement or removal proceedings, and does not alter federal authority, indicating that it is aimed at detention conditions and transparency rather than immigration status or deportation decisions.
SB2390 would amend Tennessee law by adding a new transparency-and-access framework for local detention facilities that hold people under federal detention agreements, likely affecting sheriffs’ offices, municipal police departments, county jails, and other local operators. It would create enforceable duties to provide information, visitation, and legal access, and it would expose agencies to court-ordered relief and fee awards for violations. The bill would not change federal immigration law, but it would impose state-law obligations on local entities that contract with federal agencies for detention housing.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears framed as a detainee-rights and transparency bill, which typically draws support from advocates for due process, family access, and legal representation. At the same time, it may prompt concern from local law enforcement agencies and detention operators about administrative burden, security judgments, and potential litigation exposure.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s disclosure mandate, the 24-hour response deadline, and the limits on when information may be withheld for safety reasons. Local agencies may object to the requirement that any withholding be based on a specific, articulable, written determination subject to judicial review, as well as the mandate that legal and family access not be more restrictive than for other detainees. Supporters would likely emphasize detainee rights, attorney access, and family contact, while opponents may focus on operational flexibility, facility security, and the risk of lawsuits and attorneys’ fees.