WASHINGTON, DC, June 23, 2025 — On June 20, a coalition together with a non secular group and two people filed a lawsuit difficult the constitutionality of a newly enacted Tennessee regulation that criminalizes offering shelter to people who find themselves undocumented, even when there is no such thing as a intent to hide them.
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Safety (ICAP) at Georgetown Legislation, the American Immigration Council, and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) filed the lawsuit within the federal district courtroom for the Center District of Tennessee. The lead plaintiff is the Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. They’re joined by an area landlord and a Tennessee resident who shares a house with a son-in-law who’s looking for asylum within the U.S.
Signed into regulation on Could 9, Tennessee’s Senate Invoice 392 creates sweeping prison penalties for any particular person or group that “harbors” an individual who’s undocumented—a time period that the invoice defines to incorporate offering shelter—for monetary profit. This sweeping invoice may make it prison for a church to supply momentary shelter, a landlord to hire out a room, or a member of the family to dwell with an individual who’s undocumented.
Moreover, the regulation is written so broadly that it could possibly be used to criminalize offering shelter to those that had been as soon as undocumented however subsequently obtained protected standing like asylum or safety below the Violence In opposition to Girls Act (VAWA).
“This regulation is not only dangerous, it’s unconstitutional,” mentioned ICAP senior counsel Elizabeth Cruikshank. “Immigration enforcement is a accountability of the federal authorities, not one thing that states can choose up and weaponize nevertheless they select. When particular person states begin creating their very own immigration guidelines and penalties, it creates confusion, concern, and chaos, not only for immigrants, however for households, employers, and communities throughout the state. That’s why courts have persistently held that immigration coverage should be uniform, and why legal guidelines like Tennessee’s can’t stand.”
The lawsuit argues that S.B. 392:
- Violates the U.S. Structure by permitting the state authorities of Tennessee to control immigration. It is a energy reserved for the federal authorities; in any other case, if every state created and enforced its personal immigration legal guidelines, the end result can be a chaotic patchwork of conflicting guidelines, making it almost inconceivable for regulation enforcement, companies, and immigrants to navigate throughout state strains.
- Is just too obscure for Tennesseans to grasp which conduct will likely be criminalized, introducing the specter of felony expenses and decades-long jail phrases for actions that could be completely humanitarian in nature.
“This regulation just isn’t about public security, it’s about concern and xenophobia,” mentioned American Immigration Council senior litigation legal professional Suchi Mathur. “It has already made communities throughout the state much less safe and can trigger immeasurable hurt as soon as it goes into impact. Criminalizing issues like sharing a house or welcoming churchgoers doesn’t make folks secure.”
“S.B. 392 does nothing to enhance the lives of Tennesseans or shield public security, and as an alternative makes an attempt to pit neighbors towards one another,” mentioned TIRRC senior director of authorized technique Spring Miller. “This regulation forces spiritual organizations to decide on between following their values or falling in line. It forces members of the family—spouses, siblings, even mother and father—to concern that merely residing below the identical roof as a beloved one with out authorized standing may land them behind bars. This isn’t simply unintended penalties of a foul coverage. That is utilizing the regulation to inflict cruelty and management.”
The regulation is ready to enter impact on July 1. The plaintiffs are looking for a right away injunction to dam enforcement of S.B. 392 whereas the case proceeds.
Learn the criticism right here.
