Government & Politics

Tennessee's newest anti-LGBTQ bills go against U.S. Supreme Court rulings

WPLN | By Marianna Bacallao

Published February 13, 2026 at 9:55 AM CST

Supporters of transgender rights Sarah Kolick, left, of Cleveland, and Derek Torstenson, of Colorado Springs, Colo., right, rally by the Supreme Court, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, while arguments are underway in a case regarding a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Behind the two are people who support the ban.

Tennessee lawmakers have advanced a host of anti-LGBTQ bills that would run counter to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Two measures, both proposed by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Franklin, would challenge landmark cases that legalized same-sex marriage and established protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, questioned the legality to going against Bostock v. Clayton County, which established that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“We’re talking about federal law that supersedes state law,” Johnson said. “You can’t just ignore the federal law. So, therein is the problem for those of us who believe in our U.S. Constitution.”

Bulso answered, arguing that, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not govern all employers. It only governs employers with more than 15 employees.”

The legislation, Bulso said, would only apply to small businesses — but could jeopardize federal funding by putting the state at odds with federal law.

There’s a similar fiscal note on another of Bulso’s bills that would challenge Obergefell v. Hodges. Bulso argued that the opinion only dictates that public actors must recognize same-sex marriages, not private citizens.

Tom Lee, member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Pride Chamber, spoke against the bill, arguing that it could allow discrimination against LGBTQ couples.

“Imagine if under this bill a private employer said, ‘Well, you can’t take family leave because I, as a private citizen, don’t recognize — using the language of the bill — your purported marriage,’” Lee said. “Or a bank says, ‘You’ll pay the higher rate (for unmarried couples). We’re not bound by the 14th Amendment. You’re not married in our eyes.’”

Both measures advanced Wednesday along party lines.

Other measures proposed this year would expand previous bills aimed at LGBTQ Tennesseans. State law that allows teachers to ignore a student’s preferred pronouns would expand to include honorifics like “Mr.” or “Mrs,” and the state’s drag ban would expand the type of businesses that could be penalized under the law.

Marcus Ellsworth with the Tennessee Equality Project said that the legislature wants to consider queer people obscene at a time when all people, regardless of gender or sexuality, are struggling.

“What is actually obscene is that every year we have to watch our state prioritize wasting time, money, and resources, fabricating ways to hurt us,” Ellsworth said.