AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 49, relative to threats of violence.
Summary
SB2660 revises Tennessee law governing threats of violence in schools and school-related settings. The bill changes the criminal offense in Title 39 so that a person who recklessly makes a valid and credible threat to commit an act of mass violence on school property or at a school-related activity commits a Class E felony. It also updates multiple education code provisions to use the phrase “valid and credible threat” instead of “threat of violence” or “valid threat,” aligning the terminology across related statutes.
The bill expands and clarifies the school threat-assessment process. When a student exhibits behavior that may pose a threat to the health or safety of the student or others, the assessment must include a mental healthcare provider, may be conducted by telehealth, and must evaluate the child’s welfare. The provider must give a written mental health assessment to the school threat team. The bill also requires school leaders to immediately report a student’s valid and credible threat of mass violence to law enforcement when that determination is made through the threat-assessment process. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
SB2660 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 39 and 49 by tightening and standardizing the legal framework for school violence threats, school threat assessments, and reporting obligations. It creates or reinforces a felony penalty for credible mass-violence threats on school property or at school-related activities, and it directs schools to use a defined threat-assessment process involving mental health professionals and law enforcement. The bill affects students, school districts, charter schools, school threat teams, mental healthcare providers, and local police or sheriff’s departments.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and school-security bill with an emphasis on early intervention and clearer reporting standards. The overall sentiment is likely supportive of stronger threat-response procedures and more consistent terminology, especially given the focus on protecting students and school communities. No contrary viewpoints are documented in the provided context.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the expanded reporting and assessment requirements, particularly the involvement of mental healthcare providers and the immediate referral of student threats to law enforcement. Some stakeholders may view the bill as necessary for school safety, while others could be concerned about student privacy, the breadth of what qualifies as a “valid and credible” threat, or the possibility of criminalizing reckless communications. The bill text itself does not include recorded objections or amendments, so these concerns are inferred from the policy design rather than documented debate.