The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center have renewed their challenge to Tennessee’s unauthorized immigration law, filing a second lawsuit on July 17 to seek 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. This renewed challenge follows a federal judge’s dismissal of a nearly identical lawsuit last month.
What changed
The civil rights groups filed their second lawsuit on July 17, seeking class action status to represent “hundreds if not thousands of noncitizens…subject to arrest, detention and prosecution” under the legislation, which took effect July 1. The challenged law 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 order, carrying 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 Arizona ruling that found states cannot usurp federal immigration law, or unless Congress explicitly allows states to take on immigration enforcement duties.
The plaintiffs are two noncitizens who have lived for decades in Tennessee.
Why it matters
This renewed lawsuit signals that the civil rights groups are pursuing a different legal theory after the initial June 2026 dismissal. Courts across the country have repeatedly reaffirmed that immigration enforcement is a power that belongs exclusively to the federal government — not the states. The case challenges whether Tennessee can criminally punish individuals for remaining in the state after receiving a final federal removal order—a status determined solely by federal immigration judges.
For practitioners with Tennessee-based clients who have final removal orders, this litigation creates legal uncertainty about state criminal exposure. If the law stands, it may pressure clients to depart rather than pursue federal stay remedies (VAWA, U visa, cancellation of removal, or motions to reopen). If the plaintiffs prevail, the law will be unenforceable.
The class action certification sought by the plaintiffs could ultimately represent thousands of affected noncitizens, broadening the practical impact if successful.
Way forward
-
Check the docket: Monitor the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division (case Lucy v. Skrmetti) for orders and hearing dates. The court’s prior dismissal on standing grounds suggests the plaintiffs have adjusted their complaint to address that issue.
-
Advise affected clients carefully: Until the case is resolved, explain to clients with final removal orders that Tennessee now purports to criminalize remaining in the state beyond 90 days. Discuss federal stay options and the timeline for departure if no federal relief is available.
-
Document client ties: For clients with strong community, family, or employment ties in Tennessee, the class action status may offer an alternative to immediate departure if they choose to remain and challenge the law.
-
Monitor for preliminary injunction: Watch for any motion for preliminary injunction, which could temporarily block enforcement while the case proceeds on the merits.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in Tennessee or admitted pro hac vice for legal advice regarding HB 1704 and its application to your specific circumstances. Immigration policy and court decisions can change without notice; verify all information against the primary sources, court filings, and current agency guidance before taking action.