The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center are asking a federal judge to reopen a case that challenges the constitutionality of Tennessee law making illegal immigration a state crime. A U.S. District Court judge initially dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds—but new litigation strategy may reshape how civil rights lawyers argue injury for plaintiffs challenging state immigration statutes.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson dismissed the class action lawsuit last month without ruling on its merits in a decision unprompted by any motion to dismiss by state attorneys. Richardson ruled two initial plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit because they would not be subject to arrest under the new state law.
On Monday, civil rights lawyers petitioned Richardson to set aside his dismissal of the case, providing additional details about the immigration status of the two plaintiffs—referred to as “Lucy” and “Benjamin” in legal filings—to demonstrate they are, in fact, at risk for arrest and prosecution under the plain language of the law: both individuals have valid and outstanding orders for removal by immigration judges.
Originally filed June 4, the lawsuit sought to block Tennessee’s new law before it took effect July 1. The lawyers argued “setting aside the judgement is warranted to prevent manifest injustice,” noting the alternative was a lengthy appeals process, and they have asked Richardson for an expedited decision to reopen the case.
The judge ordered attorneys to explain why they waited two weeks after he dismissed the case to request an expedited reopening. Noting he had dismissed the case “without prejudice,” Richardson also demanded an explanation of why the attorneys did not opt to file a new case instead.
Why it matters
If the judge grants the motion to reopen, this case will test a critical pleading doctrine: whether a noncitizen with an outstanding removal order but who has not yet been arrested for the state crime has Article III standing to challenge the state law before the fact. The initial dismissal suggests the judge read the Tennessee statute narrowly—perhaps requiring active state prosecution or ICE referral as a precondition to injury.
The ACLU and NILC’s revised submission reframes the issue: an outstanding federal removal order, combined with state criminal liability for remaining in-state, creates imminent and concrete risk of harm even without state arrest. This is the standing theory that will likely control similar challenges in other jurisdictions now criminalizing immigration status (Texas S.B. 4, and similar pending legislation).
Local jails are required to cooperate with immigration authorities under Tennessee law, routinely resulting in transfers of individuals to federal immigration custody. Scores of local law enforcement agencies across the state have opted into even closer working partnerships with ICE. Hundreds if not thousands of noncitizens in Tennessee are currently subject to arrest, detention and prosecution under the legislation.
The lawyers argued the legislation is an unconstitutional usurpation of immigration enforcement powers reserved for the federal government. That Supremacy Clause argument remains on the table if the case is reopened—but only if Richardson finds standing.
Way forward
- Review the pleading strategy: The motion reframes the injury by citing plaintiffs’ outstanding removal orders and plain-language liability under the statute. If successful, this approach will serve as a template for practitioners challenging analogous state laws in other circuits.
- Monitor the motion deadline: The judge has ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file a supplemental brief addressing the two-week delay and the “without prejudice” dismissal. Watch for the judge’s order on the motion to reopen (likely by early August 2026).
- Prepare for long litigation: The lawsuit was originally filed June 4 and sought to block Tennessee’s new law before it took effect July 1. Even if standing is cleared, the merits phase—federal preemption, equal protection, and due process—will take months or years to resolve.
- Coordinate with Texas litigation: Similar constitutional challenges to Texas S.B. 4 are pending in federal court. Tennessee’s standing ruling (if favorable) may persuade other judges facing identical constitutional questions.
Disclaimer
This article is published by Fola Editorial, a software company, not a law firm. It is not legal advice and does not constitute your retained counsel’s representation. Do not rely on this article alone to evaluate the status of any case, filing deadline, or constitutional argument. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before filing or advising a client on any matter arising from state immigration statutes. Judicial rulings and agency policy change without notice; verify against the primary source linked above and the live docket before taking action.