Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill clarifying 14th Amendment does not bind private actors after heated floor debate
Summary
After sustained debate over constitutionality and captions, the Tennessee House passed HB 14‑73, which sponsors say clarifies that certain 14th Amendment interpretations do not bind private individuals; opponents warned the measure belongs in the courts and would erode federal protections.
The Tennessee House passed House Bill 14‑73 on third and final consideration after more than an hour of floor debate centering on whether the measure attempts to nullify federal constitutional protections. Sponsor Representative Bosa said the bill "simply clarifies" that the 14th Amendment's restraints apply to state action and not private parties, citing past Supreme Court decisions.
Opponents delivered sustained legal and procedural objections. Chairman Clemens said he rose "with sincere concerns about this legislation for multiple reasons," calling the bill "inherently flawed" and arguing it conflicts with the Supremacy Clause and exceeds its caption, a constitutional drafting requirement for Tennessee bills. Representative Harris asked whether the bill would allow private entities to ignore equal‑protection or due‑process guarantees, and Representative Bain argued the chamber does not get to "pick and choose which constitutional rights we like." Representative McKenzie and others urged that such disputes belong in court rather than on the House floor.
An amendment offered by Representative Salinas to remove the word "purported" from the bill was adopted for consideration but failed on the floor (Amendment No. 1: 23 ayes, 70 nays). Chairman Clemens then moved to re‑refer the bill to the House Judiciary Committee on caption and constitutional grounds; Clerk recorded the re‑refer motion as receiving 24 ayes and 69 nays, so it did not carry. The House ultimately voted to pass HB 14‑73; Clerk announced the bill had received a constitutional majority and the Speaker declared it passed.
Supporters pointed to historical case law and prior legislative expressions of disagreement with federal decisions, and sponsor Bosa cited Civil Rights Cases, Shelley v. Kramer, and U.S. v. Morrison during the floor exchange to argue the text clarifies existing law rather than creating new rights. Opponents stressed the bill's broader potential effects—Representative Harris read provisions of the 14th Amendment aloud to highlight the amendment’s scope, and Representative Bain warned of erosion of federal protections if the measure were adopted as a means to nullify rights.
The next procedural effect is that HB 14‑73 has passed the House as recorded during the session; any legal challenges or further actions would occur post‑session in courts or through subsequent legislative steps.
