Bill criminalizing votes for immigrant sanctuary policies ‘constitutionally suspect'
Immigrant families and activists rally outside the Tennessee State Capitol in 2018, protesting a law to prohibit sanctuary cities.(Photo by)
As Gov. Bill Lee's immigration enforcement plan moves swiftly through the Tennessee Legislature, one component of the bill — aimed at arresting local officials who support sanctuary policies for immigrants — drew scrutiny Tuesday.
Included in the governor's wide-ranging proposal to coordinate with the Trump Administration on mass immigrant detentions and deportations is a provision that creates a Class E felony for public officials who vote to adopt or enact sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies can shield undocumented immigrants and limit cooperation with enforcement action
The felony charge, punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine, would apply to any public official who votes in favor of a sanctuary law, policy or on non-binding resolutions.
Sen. Todd Gardenhire, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the provision Tuesday as a 'dangerous precedent.'
'We are a Republic, and a Republic is one that we elect people to vote the way they feel like is best for the district, the city, county or the state,' he said.
'If we set the precedent of penalizing any elected official for voting their conscience, whether it's good or bad, then we set a dangerous precedent for the future,' he said.
Under Trump, immigration arrests at school could be a step too far for some Tennessee conservatives
Democrats characterized the provision as a 'slippery slope' that could be invoked in future legislation to criminalize votes on any controversial issue.
'It is alarming we are sitting here talking about felonizing elected officials taking votes on behalf of their constituency,' Sen. Heidi Campbell, a Nashville Democrat, said. 'Boy, this is a slippery slope and be careful what you wish for if you vote for this.'
Gardenhire was in the minority among Republicans who dominate the Senate Judiciary Committee. They quickly shot down Gardenhire's efforts to amend the bill to remove criminal penalties before voting to advance it in the legislature.
Sanctuary policies are already prohibited by a 2019 Tennessee law that sought to prevent local governments from adopting sanctuary city status —as some other Democrat-led cities across the country have done.
The 2019 Tennessee law gives citizens the right to file civil suits challenging any jurisdiction's adoption of sanctuary policies and the state the power to withhold funding over violations.
'When the state banned sanctuary cities, its remedies were to deny cities grants and to seek a court order,' said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.
'Here the state is trying to control the actions of duly-elected officials through the police power,' he said. 'That's a dramatic escalation.'
One national government accountability expert said he knew of no other state law that threatened to prosecute public officials for how they cast a vote.
I don't know of any other laws, state or federal, that penalize elected officials on the basis of how they vote. This seems to defeat the whole purpose of democratic-republican (representative) government.
– John Vile, Middle Tennessee State University
'It's an unprecedented power grab and criminalization of political discourse,' said Dan Vicuña, director of redistricting and representation for Common Cause, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group.
'It puts at risk the basic right to local representative and democratic government,' he said.
And local legal experts, among them the legislature's own attorney, said the provision may be 'constitutionally suspect.'
'Generally speaking Tennessee courts have found legislative bodies have legislative immunity for acts that serve part of their legislative function and that legislative immunity extends to local legislative bodies,' Elizabeth Insogna, a Legislative attorney, told the committee.
'Be prepared' Nashville leaders caution immigrant communities about looming crackdowns
'It's possible that a criminal provision that is enforced against a member of a legislative body may be constitutionally suspect,' she said. 'It would be up for a court to determine.'
John Vile, professor of political science and Dean of the University Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University said 'legislators should heed Article 1' of the Tennessee Constitution, which establishes a 'Declaration of Rights' for citizens and their elected representatives.
'I don't know of any other laws, state or federal, that penalize elected officials on the basis of how they vote,' he said. 'This seems to defeat the whole purpose of democratic-republican (representative) government.
Republicans however noted the criminal penalties are aimed at elected officials attempting to pass legislation already outlawed in Tennessee.
'I think everybody would agree that's something that elected officials should be prohibited from doing, or should not do,' said Sen. Kerry Roberts, a Springfield Republican. 'The fact there's a consequence for it, I personally don't have a problem with that, because they ought not to be doing it in the first place. It's illegal.'
Only two current laws provide criminal penalties for lawmakers acting in their official capacities, according to Stephen Crump, executive director of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference. One longstanding law allows criminal charges to be brought against county commissioners who fail to adequately fund local jails. Other lawmakers may be charged if their vote violates official misconduct statutes.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.


Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration urges court not to dismiss case against Wisconsin judge
MADISON, Wis. — The Trump administration argued Monday that charges should not be dropped against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted for allegedly helping a man who is in the country evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice urged a federal judge to reject a motion filed by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan seeking to dismiss the charges against her, saying doing so would be 'unprecedented' and allow judges to be above the law.

E&E News
28 minutes ago
- E&E News
‘Cognitive dissonance': Trump's science policy at odds with MAHA goals
The White House's inaugural 'Make America Healthy Again' report decried industry influence over environmental regulations. President Donald Trump's scientific integrity order, signed one day later, doesn't even refer to political interference. The May 23 executive order spelling out the standards for top-tier science 'doesn't mention the elephant in the room, which is political interference,' said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who recently retired as EPA's head of its research office after nearly 40 years with the agency. 'In fact, they almost seem to be encouraging it,' she continued. Advertisement Absent from the order are any mentions about independence to ensure federal researchers can do their work without political influence. That could be crucial for EPA, where Trump administration officials are planning to dissolve the agency's only office dedicated to independent research.