Tennessee Law Makes Voting for Sanctuary Policies a Criminal Offense

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

Tennessee’s SB 6002/HB 6001 criminalizes officials voting for sanctuary policies, classifying it as a Class E felony with six-year imprisonment.
SB 6002/HB 6001 creates the Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division, restricts state IDs to legal residents, and incentivizes 287(g) participation.
Implementing the law, including enforcement grants and new administrative costs, will cost Tennessee taxpayers over $20 million annually.

On January 30, 2025, Tennessee 🇺🇸 enacted a controversial anti-immigration law with wide-ranging consequences for local officials, immigrant communities, and the state’s legal and financial landscape. The legislation, referred to as SB 6002/HB 6001, introduces stringent immigration enforcement measures and, most notably, criminalizes votes for “sanctuary policies.” Passed during a special legislative session convened by Governor Bill Lee and approved by a Republican-led General Assembly, this law marks one of the most severe state-level actions on immigration enforcement.

Criminalization of Sanctuary Policies

Tennessee Law Makes Voting for Sanctuary Policies a Criminal Offense

A particularly contentious provision of SB 6002/HB 6001 makes it a criminal offense for elected officials to vote in favor of sanctuary policies—such as those limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Under the law, such actions are now classified as a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $3,000. Convicted officials would also face removal proceedings initiated by the Tennessee Attorney General. This provision has sparked alarm among legal experts, advocacy groups, and civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) has been among the most vocal critics of this aspect of the law. Legal Director Stella Yarbrough voiced serious constitutional concerns, stating, “Threatening officials with felony charges and criminal prosecution based solely on how they vote raises significant constitutional concerns. This authoritarian legislation is incompatible with the bedrock American values of democracy and the rule of law.” As of February 16, 2025, no lawsuits have been filed against the law, but the ACLU-TN has signaled its intention to challenge it and has urged elected officials to seek legal assistance via their intake form.

Bruce Oppenheimer, a professor emeritus at Vanderbilt University, noted that he is unaware of any precedent in Tennessee—or elsewhere—for criminalizing an official’s vote. He suggested that Tennessee’s provision may seek to intimidate opposition to the bill and further restrict local input on immigration policies. Legal experts also question the enforceability of criminal provisions targeting elected officials for their votes, as such actions carry potential conflicts with constitutional protections for democratic governance.

Broader Immigration Enforcement Measures

Beyond the criminalization of sanctuary policies, SB 6002/HB 6001 introduces other sweeping measures aimed at tightening immigration controls across Tennessee:

Creation of the Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division (CIEO): This new division within the Tennessee Department of Safety is tasked with coordinating immigration enforcement directly with the federal government. The Chief Immigration Enforcement Officer leading the division will be appointed by the Governor.
State-ID Restrictions: The law limits Tennessee-issued identification documents to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and individuals with temporary federal authorization. Identification for non-citizens will feature distinct visual markers.
Encouragement for Local Law Enforcement to Participate in the 287(g) Program: Local law enforcement agencies are incentivized to collaborate with federal immigration authorities, allowing them to perform immigration enforcement roles under direct supervision.
Creation of a $5 Million Immigration Enforcement Grant Program: This program is designed to provide financial support for local governments to train law enforcement officers, buy necessary equipment, and cover the costs associated with immigration enforcement activities.

Implications for Tennessee

The new law could lead to far-reaching consequences for Tennessee’s immigrant communities and beyond. Advocacy groups, including the Tennessee Immigration and Refugee Rights Coalition, have expressed concerns about the potential for heightened racial profiling and increased fear among immigrants. Reports have already surfaced of families withdrawing children from schools and avoiding public spaces out of fear of the heightened enforcement environment.

Judith Clerjeune of the Tennessee Immigration and Refugee Rights Coalition issued a stark warning: “This law will create an environment of fear and hopelessness for immigrant communities across the state. It instills terror and undermines trust in local government and law enforcement.”

From a financial perspective, the law imposes a notable cost burden on the state and local governments. Early estimates project the implementation of SB 6002/HB 6001 will cost Tennessee taxpayers over $20 million annually. One specific budget line includes $545,700 per year allocated for staffing and operations within the new Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division. Additional costs tied to local government compliance and law enforcement training remain uncertain.

Framing the Legislation

Governor Bill Lee justified the legislation as a response to growing federal-state collaboration on immigration enforcement. He directly tied Tennessee’s new policies to President Trump’s emphasis on state roles in immigration. “President Trump has made it clear that states will play a major role in partnering with his administration to enforce immigration laws and keep communities safe, and Tennessee is heeding the call,” Governor Lee stated.

Supporters of the law argue that it is a necessary measure to align Tennessee with federal immigration priorities and ensure that local governments do not obstruct immigration enforcement efforts. The introduction of financial incentives for local law enforcement under SB 6002/HB 6001 aims to encourage participation in federal programs in line with these goals.

However, critics note that criminalizing officials’ votes takes the state’s immigration enforcement measures to an unprecedented level. Tennessee’s approach has drawn comparisons with similar legislative efforts in other Republican-led states, yet its provisions go further in targeting local governance.

Legal Challenges and Implementation Concerns

As the law begins its implementation phase, backed by new government agencies and funding programs, significant hurdles remain. First and foremost is the question of constitutionality. Civil rights groups and legal experts contend that applying criminal penalties to votes may violate protections established under the U.S Constitution, including the First Amendment and principles related to separation of powers. Immigration enforcement has traditionally fallen under federal jurisdiction. Critics argue that Tennessee’s new measures risk potential conflicts with federal laws.

Judicial scrutiny will likely focus heavily on whether the criminalization of sanctuary policies infringes on the rights of elected officials to carry out their legislative duties freely. In addition, local governments may face logistical and financial challenges in complying with new mandates, such as joining and maintaining 287(g) program agreements.

Broader National Context

Tennessee’s actions must be viewed within a broader context, as Republican-led states have increasingly moved to tighten immigration enforcement measures. The state’s legislation mirrors a growing trend of laws intended to discourage sanctuary policies, but Tennessee’s criminalization provision highlights a more aggressive approach. VisaVerge.com has noted that this law represents a “significant escalation” in state-level immigration policy efforts.

Observers have pointed out the potential for a chilling effect on local governance as elected officials may fear prosecution for voting on behalf of community concerns. At the same time, immigrant advocacy groups nationwide underscore that heightened enforcement measures often lead to increased mistrust, reduced access to public services, and destabilization within community institutions.

What Lies Ahead?

As noted earlier, while no lawsuits have been filed against Tennessee’s new law as of mid-February 2025, the ACLU-TN and other organizations are expected to bring legal challenges soon. Advocacy groups will likely scrutinize the law’s financial and operational demands as they unfold in practice. A considerable degree of attention will also remain on the national legal debate surrounding immigration enforcement and federalism.

In this time of transition, individuals, particularly local officials, are encouraged to seek expert legal advice regarding their specific situations. ACLU-TN has stressed the importance of elected officials consulting professional lawyers to understand the potential impact of SB 6002/HB 6001.

The coming months will be pivotal as Tennessee faces judicial review and begins implementing the most rigid provisions of its law. Further developments will shape not only the future of immigration enforcement within the state but broader discussions around states’ rights in managing immigration policies.

For additional details, readers are encouraged to refer to official state government announcements or contact the ACLU-TN here.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult professional legal counsel for personalized advice.

Learn Today

Sanctuary Policies → Policies limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or detention.
Class E Felony → A criminal offense in Tennessee punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $3,000.
287(g) Program → A federal program allowing local law enforcement to perform certain immigration enforcement duties under federal supervision.
Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division (CIEO) → A new Tennessee state agency coordinating immigration enforcement efforts between local authorities and the federal government.
Separation of Powers → A constitutional principle dividing government authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent power concentration.

This Article in a Nutshell

Tennessee’s 2025 anti-immigration law SB 6002/HB 6001 criminalizes votes for sanctuary policies, sparking constitutional concerns. Local officials risk felony charges, jail time, and removal for opposing strict immigration enforcement. Critics warn of racial profiling, eroded trust, and $20 million in statewide costs. Legal challenges loom, with national implications for democracy and immigrants’ rights.
— By VisaVerge.com