The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center have renewed their challenge to a Tennessee law making illegal immigration a state crime after a federal judge dismissed a nearly identical lawsuit last month.
In their second lawsuit, filed July 17, the civil right groups are seeking an immediate and permanent halt to legislation that creates a misdemeanor crime for immigrants to remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after receiving a final removal order from an immigration judge.
Filed on behalf of two noncitizens who have lived for decades in Tennessee, the lawsuit is also seeking class action status in order to represent “hundreds if not thousands of noncitizens…subject to arrest, detention and prosecution,” under the new legislation, which took effect July 1.
The law was enacted as part of Tennessee Republicans’ so-called “Immigration 2026” agenda, which grew out of meetings between House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Stephen Miller, a White House advisor who is a key architect of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. GOP lawmakers called the package of legislation targeting immigrants a “model for the nation.”
The legislation being challenged in court makes it a Class A criminal misdemeanor offense for noncitizens to intentionally remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after being issued a final deportation. Class A misdemeanors carry a sentence of up to one year in jail and a maximum $2,500 fine.
The legislation also makes it a crime for immigrants without legal status to enter, or attempt to enter, Tennessee, a provision that will not take effect unless the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling out of Arizona that found states cannot usurp federal immigration law. The provision may also take effect if Congress acts to explicitly allow states to take on immigration enforcement duties.
The lawsuit contends Tennessee lawmakers violated the Constitution’s Supremacy clause, arguing the federal government alone can enforce immigration law
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson last month dismissed the attorneys’ initial lawsuit, which made identical legal arguments, without ruling on its merits.
In his dismissal order, Richardson ruled two plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit, because they would not be subject to arrest under the new state law. Richardson called the case “more attorney-driven rather than client-driven.”
The same two plaintiffs, referred to only by first name in legal documents, are also plaintiffs in the refiled lawsuit. The second lawsuit provides greater detail about the individuals’ immigration status. The two plaintiffs are subject to arrest under the new Tennessee law, the lawsuit alleges.
This story was originally published by the Tennessee Lookout.
