Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances bill to criminalize remaining in Tennessee after removal order

Judiciary Committee · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 1704, which would make it a misdemeanor to remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after a final order of removal; the bill passed out of committee 15–5 after public testimony and legal questions about federal preemption.

The Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 1704 as amended, a measure that would create a state-classified misdemeanor for anyone who "intentionally fail[s] or refuse[s] to depart from this state within a period of 90 days from the date of a final order of removal," according to committee discussion. The motion to send the bill to calendar and rules passed 15–5.

Two public witnesses opposed the bill. Steven Puckett, who identified himself as a Hendersonville resident, told the committee he was "speaking in opposition to this legislation," arguing the change could empower traffickers and create opportunities for "extort[ion], manipulate[ion], and abuse" of people brought into the country. Amanda Hernandez, who said she was "in respectful opposition," urged a no vote and said "immigration enforcement is a matter of federal law," warning that state-level criminalization risks costly litigation and duplicate enforcement.

Members pressed legal counsel on whether the bill would be constitutional. Legal staff described the elements the state would have to prove (a final removal order and a willful failure to depart within 90 days) and confirmed the offense would be prosecuted in criminal court, with indigent defendants entitled to state-funded counsel in criminal prosecutions. Representative Johnson and others raised concerns that the measure could conflict with federal immigration law and existing Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Sponsor remarks emphasized enforcement and public-safety rationales. Leader Lambert described the bill as transforming the current civil consequences into a criminal penalty for those who remain after a final removal order, and urged members to move the bill forward. The committee adopted an amendment (House Amendment 13082) before advancing the measure.

The bill now proceeds to the next stage in the House process; proponents and opponents signaled continued legal and policy debate ahead.