- 2026, Immigration
Create Class A misdemeanors for knowingly remaining in Tennessee after a final removal order and for reentering after deportation.
HB 1704 / SB 1779
Bill Description
Bill Sponsors
Rep. William Lamberth
Sen. Jack Johnson
Bill Co-Sponsors
House: Sexton, Zachary, Marsh, Garrett, Cochran, Bulso, Lafferty, White, Howell, Hicks G, Todd, Vaughan, Farmer, Moody, Powers, Kumar, Grills, Hawk, Cepicky, Hale, Carringer, Reeves, Leatherwood, Fritts, Doggett, Darby, McCalmon, Martin G, Moon, Alexander, Boyd, Maberry, Sherrell, Jones R, Slater, Hicks T, Crawford, Wright, Lankford, Scarbrough, Eldridge, Rudder, Helton-Haynes, Martin B, Bricken, Butler, Atchley, Littleton, Hill, Warner, Stinnett, Keisling, Raper, Stevens, Davis, Capley, Gant, Haston, Rudd, Terry, Reneau, Reedy
Senate: Bowling, Hensley, Jackson, Lowe, Rose, Seal, Stevens, Taylor, White
TLRC Statement on Bill
HB1704 would make two new Class A misdemeanors under Tennessee law: (1) intentionally failing or refusing to depart the state within 90 days when a person is subject to a valid final federal order of removal, and (2) intentionally entering, attempting to enter, or being found in Tennessee after having been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States. The bill authorizes a court to stay state criminal proceedings where the defendant has not exhausted available federal avenues to challenge a removal order, and it includes unspecified exemptions. Critically, the statute is written to take effect only after either the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Arizona v. United States (2012) or Congress passes a statute removing federal preemption over state determinations of unlawful presence.
From a conservative, originalist perspective, HB1704 aims to reinforce the rule of law and give the state tools to address unlawful presence when federal preemption no longer blocks state action. The bill is cautious about federal conflict (it delays effectiveness until preemption is resolved) and preserves a role for federal review by allowing stays while federal remedies remain. Those are positives. However, the bill also expands state criminal law into an area long governed by federal immigration statutes; absent clear, narrow exemptions (for inability to depart, pending asylum claims, or lack of travel documents) and strong due-process safeguards, it risks criminalizing vulnerable people and undermining community policing by encouraging local enforcement of immigration status.
