A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a Tennessee state immigration crime law lacked standing to pursue the case, calling the lawsuit “attorney-driven rather than client-driven.” The judge did not rule on the merits of the law, leaving the door open to future challenges. For immigration practitioners and organizations litigating state immigration enforcement laws, this decision signals potential barriers to class-action strategies in federal court.
What changed
U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson ruled that plaintiffs in the case lacked standing to challenge the state law, stating in his decision the lawsuit “is more attorney-driven rather than client-driven.” Richardson, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018, did not rule on the merits of the law, leaving the door open to future challenges.
The Tennessee law itself, which goes into effect on July 1, makes it a Class A misdemeanor under state criminal law for noncitizens to intentionally remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after being issued a final deportation order by a federal immigration judge. 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, the state.
The new law was enacted by Tennessee Republicans as part of its so-called “Immigration 2026” agenda.
Why it matters
The standing dismissal is a procedural win for the state but a cautionary sign for immigration practitioners and civil rights organizations challenging state immigration laws. Without reaching the merits, the court blocked the challenge at the threshold stage—meaning the substantive constitutional question (whether Tennessee can criminalize conduct that is purely a federal immigration matter) remains unanswered.
This outcome has two practical implications:
First, plaintiff selection matters. The judge’s statement that the case was “attorney-driven rather than client-driven” suggests the court viewed the named plaintiffs as vehicles for organizational litigation strategy rather than parties with independent injury. Future challengers may need to demonstrate that plaintiffs have concrete, particularized interests beyond the lawyers’ interest in testing the law.
Second, the door remains open but narrower. Because the judge did not rule on the merits, another lawsuit with different plaintiffs—or with stronger evidence of individual injury—could theoretically proceed. However, the standing language may discourage class actions or organizational sponsorship of test cases.
Way forward
If you represent noncitizens in Tennessee or advise organizations on immigration litigation strategy:
- Assess direct injury. If a client has actually been charged or faces imminent prosecution under the law, that client has stronger standing credentials than a plaintiff sued to establish a pattern or policy. Document the specific harm.
- Re-evaluate class certification. The court’s skepticism toward organizational plaintiffs may mean class actions need more detailed factual development at the motion-to-certify stage to show members face particularized injury.
- Monitor appellate developments. The decision is not final if appealed. The Sixth Circuit (which covers Tennessee) may reverse on standing grounds or may address the merits on a different record.
- Coordinate with other jurisdictions. Similar laws in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Iowa are also in federal court. Coordinate discovery and litigation positions; a favorable ruling elsewhere can inform Tennessee strategy.
Disclaimer
This article explains a federal court decision and is not legal advice. Litigation strategy depends on your specific facts, jurisdiction, and client status. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your state. Court decisions and policy can change without notice; always verify against the primary source and current case law before relying on this summary.