Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Proposed split of 15th Judicial District stalls after prosecutors and public defenders warn of cost, service loss

Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee · March 25, 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

A bill to carve Wilson County out of Tennessee's 15th Judicial District and create a new 33rd district drew sharp testimony from the district attorney and public defender, who said the change would raise costs and reduce services; the committee deadlocked and left the bill uncommitted.

Senator Hill introduced legislation to create a new 33rd Judicial District composed of Jackson, Macon, Smith and Trousdale counties, separating Wilson County from the existing 15th Judicial District to address trial backlogs and caseload delays. The sponsor said the change is intended to "allow courts to operate more efficiently, reduce backlogs, [and] improve the speed at which cases are heard and resolved."

Jason Lawson, the district attorney for the 15th Judicial District, urged the committee to vote against the bill, arguing the district already operates with rotating judges who cover Wilson and the four rural counties and that splitting the district would duplicate staff and increase expense. "I do not have a current problem in the 15th Judicial District with our judicial resources or the allocations," Lawson said, adding the last committee study found the 15th neither over‑ nor under‑judged. Public defender Shelley Gardner echoed the concern, warning the plan would "reduce services," disrupt coordinated units such as drug task forces and child advocacy centers, and impose substantial annual operating costs on smaller counties.

Committee members questioned the fiscal note and whether the weighted caseload study under way should inform any action; proponents said the change was requested by the sponsor's county and asked to be placed in the code so funding could be considered later. After extended questioning and testimony, the vote resulted in a 4‑4 tie with one member present but not voting, and the bill was left uncommitted. The committee recorded no formal direction to staff beyond the tie vote and no funding was adopted.