The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center have renewed their challenge to a Tennessee law making illegal immigration a state crime after a federal judge dismissed a nearly identical lawsuit last month.
In their second lawsuit, filed July 17, the civil right groups are seeking 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.
Filed on behalf of two noncitizens who have lived for decades in Tennessee, the lawsuit is also seeking class action status in order to represent “hundreds if not thousands of noncitizens…subject to arrest, detention and prosecution,” under the new legislation, which took effect July 1.
The law was enacted as part of Tennessee Republicans’ so-called “Immigration 2026” agenda, which grew out of meetings between House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Stephen Miller, a White House advisor who is a key architect of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. GOP lawmakers called the package of legislation targeting immigrants a “model for the nation.”
The legislation being challenged in court 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. 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, Tennessee, a provision that will not take effect unless the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling out of Arizona that found states cannot usurp federal immigration law. The provision may also take effect if Congress acts to explicitly allow states to take on immigration enforcement duties.
The lawsuit contends Tennessee lawmakers violated the Constitution’s Supremacy clause, arguing the federal government alone can enforce immigration law
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson last month dismissed the attorneys’ initial lawsuit, which made identical legal arguments, without ruling on its merits.
In his dismissal order, Richardson ruled two plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit, because they would not be subject to arrest under the new state law. Richardson called the case “more attorney-driven rather than client-driven.”
The same two plaintiffs, referred to only by first name in legal documents, are also plaintiffs in the refiled lawsuit. The second lawsuit provides greater detail about the individuals’ immigration status. The two plaintiffs are subject to arrest under the new Tennessee law, the lawsuit alleges.
Originally published on tennesseelookout.com, part of the BLOX Digital Content Exchange.
Please disable your ad blocker, whitelist our site, or purchase a subscription
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.