Committee rejects bill requiring local agencies to hold immigrants on ICE detainers

A Tennessee House Departments & Agencies subcommittee on Tuesday voted down House Bill 10, the "Tennessee Legal Immigration Act," after testimony from state safety officials and public commenters who said the measure would create logistical, financial and legal problems for local law enforcement and for the Department of Safety.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Warner, described the measure as requiring law enforcement agencies that have custody of a person “known to be unlawfully present in the United States” to request an immigration detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and, if a detainer is issued, to “maintain the individual for the maximum period of time specified in the detainer or until the individual is taken into custody by ICE, whichever occurs first.” The bill also would have required monthly reporting by local law enforcement to the Department of Safety and an annual aggregated report from the Department of Safety beginning Jan. 1, 2026.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill would increase statewide reporting and enforcement of immigration laws; opponents, including Tennessee Department of Safety and the state Office of Homeland Security, said the state does not have the facilities or legal authority to house or detain people transferred from local jails and risked duplicative reporting and significant liability and expense for local agencies.

State safety officials opposed the bill. Ben Voytes, legislative liaison with the Department of Safety, said the department “is opposed to this bill,” adding that the department “does not have a way to house these individuals if they were to transfer to the department.” Deputy Commissioner Greg Mays, with Tennessee’s Office of Homeland Security, told the committee that state troopers and homeland-security staff “have no legal authority to detain them, and if we did have legal authority, no jail to put them in.” He later said: “so what do we do with that person?”

Committee members and counsel discussed existing federal programs and prior state action. Legal counsel identified the federal 287(g) program as an existing mechanism by which local agencies enter memoranda of understanding with federal authorities to detain noncitizens; counsel said the special session law establishing a centralized immigration enforcement office and a grant program to encourage MOUs under 287(g) does not conflict with HB 10 but that HB 10 would not duplicate or replace those arrangements.

Public testimony included two speakers who opposed the bill. Luis Pedraza, introduced as a community member from Shelbyville, said the bill “will create cruel, and unusual punishment” for people who may be mistakenly flagged by ICE and warned local police could be exposed to lawsuits and costs. Ashley Warbington, speaking as a private citizen, called HB 10 “a reckless and costly overreach” and cited federal court settlements in other jurisdictions as examples of potential liability; she also referenced figures in the bill’s earlier version’s fiscal note, saying the measure "would impose over 3,500,000.0 in annual costs on local governments just for transportation" and that a new database system “estimated to cost at least 300,000 would be required,” comments the sponsor countered by saying the amendment removed transportation requirements.

Committee action and outcome: the committee considered an amendment (committee drafting code 004456) that rewrote portions of the bill; the amendment was adopted and the sponsor proceeded to present the amended measure. After questions, legal analysis and public testimony, the subcommittee voted. The clerk announced the tally as 0 ayes, 3 noes and 1 present not voting; the bill failed on the floor of the subcommittee and was reported as failed.

Context and next steps: committee members noted work that occurred during the special session to set up a centralized immigration enforcement office and a grant program to encourage 287(g) MOUs; witnesses told the subcommittee that reporting required by the special-session legislation would begin to provide statewide data. The Department of Safety and Homeland Security opposed HB 10 as written and said it would be unable to accept custody or provide housing if ICE did not take custody. Representative Warner said he sought the committee’s support to ‘‘stand with our president’’ and urged action on illegal immigration; the committee did not advance the bill.