The bill that came through the Senate on Tuesday may be the most alarming bill we’ll see in 2026. This bill, if passed, will put a provision in place keeping citizens from petitioning the government when they deem an action is unconstitutional.
In 2018, a law was passed that would allow Tennesseans to “seek declaratory or injunctive relief in any lawsuit challenging the legality or constitutionality of any state action.” This codified into law the right to challenge a law or action brought forth by the state of Tennessee.
On Tuesday, Senator Stevens (R – District 24) and Representative Farmer (R – District 17) presented a bill that would remove this language and therefore remove this right.
“You can simply challenge a policy that this body has created in court and tie up the state with numerous litigation,” said Senator Stevens during the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is the kind of legislation that will simply put us back where we were before with a traditional application of … our fundamental division and separation of powers.
The failure to pass this bill…disenfranchises every member of this body by empowering the judiciary to run the state of Tennessee. We never intended that to happen.”
The word “disenfranchise” means “to deprive of a right or privilege”.
To use Senator Stevens’ own words, this bill will deprive the rights of every member of the legislation because it allows a citizen to question the constitutionality of their decisions.
This is a common misconception across all bodies of government, from federal to local, the power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people, not the legislative body we’ve elected to represent us. The government does not have rights, the people do. If the deprivation of rights or privileges is applied to anyone, it’s the people, not the government.
The position of the bill sponsors is that injury must be proven before being able to take legal action; there must be tangible evidence that a law is unconstitutional, not just based on theory and what could happen.
For example, you must have your freedom of speech taken away by the state government before you can challenge a law that would do just that.
You must have lived through several years of mandates based on a man-made virus intended to break us as a society before you can shine the light on unconstitutional policies.
If the 2018 law is amended, as the bill sponsors intend, the ability to challenge the government has to come AFTER a life long vaccine injury occurs from a state mandated vaccine, NOT before.
This bill restricts citizens from being able to question the constitutionality of legislation before the damages can be proven.
In 2018, SB1870 of the 110th General Assembly amended the bill to include that “a cause of action shall exist under this chapter for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action. A cause of action shall not exist under this chapter to seek damages.” https://capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB1870.pdf
The bill passed in the Senate with 30 ayes and 0 nayes, Senator Stevens being included in that vote. So what changed? He stated in the committee on Tuesday that this bill never intended to give such rights to the citizenry, what changed his mind?
The passing of this bill in 2018 may have actually been unnecessary, given that the Tennessee Supreme Court offered the following opinion in 2008, when “Colonial Pipeline Company filed suit for declaratory judgment, challenging the constitutionality of specified portions of the state tax code”. The opinion of the court was “that (1) a party making a constitutional challenge to the facial validity of a statute need not exhaust its administrative remedies, and that (2) the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a suit for declaratory judgment asking state officers to be enjoined from enforcing such a statute so long as the action does not seek money damages.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tn-supreme-court/1408227.html
Until this week, the law has been on the side of the people. The people have had a constitutionally protected ability to petition the courts when they deem a legal action impedes on their rights.
The purpose of the separation of powers exists to keep all three in check. The judicial branch has the responsibility to ensure the citizens are protected by the rights outlined in the constitution and ensure that the legislative or executive branches do not infringe upon them.
This bill seeks to directly cut off the rights of the people and limit the power of our judicial branch.
Again, the question we must ask is why do these legislators want to challenge a law that a handful of them originally voted to support in 2018? What changed? What cases have come to the Tennessee Supreme Court that have caused this “back up in litigation” as Senator Stevens claims.
Senator Stevens argued that “people will still have the ability to sue the state when they feel like their constitutional rights have been violated…You just have to show that you’ve been injured.”
The House Judiciary Committee will hear this bill on March 11th. It has been withdrawn in the Senate due to a tie, but can be brought back for a vote at a moment’s notice. We are watching.
To close, here are some further thoughts from Representative Monty Fritts,
“It would seem that some may be suffering from a political madness who would offer this legislation during the times of the Epstein debacle. Tennesseans expect increased transparency and greater accountability from their government. Tennesseans expect our rights to be secured rather than trampled with legislation far outside the boundaries we the people have granted them.
This seems to be a direct assault on TN Constitution Article 1, Sections 17 and 19. One could assume suits resulting from cause of action that impeded or infringed upon the rights of Tennesseans are protected in these sections. This attempt to stifle the people’s authority (A.1,S.1) to redress issues with those holding office is either staggeringly bold or amazingly stupid at this time in our nation.
Does this preemptively address HB 0562 which would forbid an executive from declaring a citizen non-essential based on that citizen’s lawful occupation, holding the executive financially liable; a bill which was sent back to committee from a floor vote by the House sponsor of this egregious piece of legislation?
Does this bill attempt to preempt lawsuits by citizens who challenge the constitutionality of the Governor’s ill-devised voucher scam? Do the powers at be fear an accurate judicial assessment of A.11,S.12 and perhaps their accountability in pressing such through?
Does this bill seek to prevent those who hold our rights as being endowed upon us by our Creator and desiring a full exercise of our right to keep and bear arms from initiation of future Hughes v Lee type lawsuits? Are the tyrannical “powers at be” attempting to legislate a loss to the people to cover their inept support of our 2A rights?
Do the sponsors fail to recognize the frustration of most Tennessee citizens? Have they become so insulated in the cocoons of lobbyists and out of state money that they can no longer hear the voice of the people? Have the celebrity and establishment political crowds so obfuscated reason that this bill seems reasonable to them?
I will close with a simple assertion. Our foundational role according to the Declaration of Independence is to secure the rights of the people. That cannot and must not be overshadowed by an attempt to shield the politically affluent from accountability for their actions.”
Tennesseans, We are THIS Close to Losing a Vital Right!
The bill that came through the Senate on Tuesday may be the most alarming bill we’ll see in 2026. This bill, if passed, will put a provision in place keeping citizens from petitioning the government when they deem an action is unconstitutional.
In 2018, a law was passed that would allow Tennesseans to “seek declaratory or injunctive relief in any lawsuit challenging the legality or constitutionality of any state action.” This codified into law the right to challenge a law or action brought forth by the state of Tennessee.
On Tuesday, Senator Stevens (R – District 24) and Representative Farmer (R – District 17) presented a bill that would remove this language and therefore remove this right.
“You can simply challenge a policy that this body has created in court and tie up the state with numerous litigation,” said Senator Stevens during the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is the kind of legislation that will simply put us back where we were before with a traditional application of … our fundamental division and separation of powers.
The failure to pass this bill…disenfranchises every member of this body by empowering the judiciary to run the state of Tennessee. We never intended that to happen.”
The word “disenfranchise” means “to deprive of a right or privilege”.
To use Senator Stevens’ own words, this bill will deprive the rights of every member of the legislation because it allows a citizen to question the constitutionality of their decisions.
This is a common misconception across all bodies of government, from federal to local, the power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people, not the legislative body we’ve elected to represent us. The government does not have rights, the people do. If the deprivation of rights or privileges is applied to anyone, it’s the people, not the government.
The position of the bill sponsors is that injury must be proven before being able to take legal action; there must be tangible evidence that a law is unconstitutional, not just based on theory and what could happen.
For example, you must have your freedom of speech taken away by the state government before you can challenge a law that would do just that.
You must have lived through several years of mandates based on a man-made virus intended to break us as a society before you can shine the light on unconstitutional policies.
If the 2018 law is amended, as the bill sponsors intend, the ability to challenge the government has to come AFTER a life long vaccine injury occurs from a state mandated vaccine, NOT before.
This bill restricts citizens from being able to question the constitutionality of legislation before the damages can be proven.
In 2018, SB1870 of the 110th General Assembly amended the bill to include that “a cause of action shall exist under this chapter for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action. A cause of action shall not exist under this chapter to seek damages.” https://capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB1870.pdf
The bill passed in the Senate with 30 ayes and 0 nayes, Senator Stevens being included in that vote. So what changed? He stated in the committee on Tuesday that this bill never intended to give such rights to the citizenry, what changed his mind?
The passing of this bill in 2018 may have actually been unnecessary, given that the Tennessee Supreme Court offered the following opinion in 2008, when “Colonial Pipeline Company filed suit for declaratory judgment, challenging the constitutionality of specified portions of the state tax code”. The opinion of the court was “that (1) a party making a constitutional challenge to the facial validity of a statute need not exhaust its administrative remedies, and that (2) the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a suit for declaratory judgment asking state officers to be enjoined from enforcing such a statute so long as the action does not seek money damages.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tn-supreme-court/1408227.html
Until this week, the law has been on the side of the people. The people have had a constitutionally protected ability to petition the courts when they deem a legal action impedes on their rights.
The purpose of the separation of powers exists to keep all three in check. The judicial branch has the responsibility to ensure the citizens are protected by the rights outlined in the constitution and ensure that the legislative or executive branches do not infringe upon them.
This bill seeks to directly cut off the rights of the people and limit the power of our judicial branch.
Again, the question we must ask is why do these legislators want to challenge a law that a handful of them originally voted to support in 2018? What changed? What cases have come to the Tennessee Supreme Court that have caused this “back up in litigation” as Senator Stevens claims.
Senator Stevens argued that “people will still have the ability to sue the state when they feel like their constitutional rights have been violated…You just have to show that you’ve been injured.”
The House Judiciary Committee will hear this bill on March 11th. It has been withdrawn in the Senate due to a tie, but can be brought back for a vote at a moment’s notice. We are watching.
To close, here are some further thoughts from Representative Monty Fritts,
“It would seem that some may be suffering from a political madness who would offer this legislation during the times of the Epstein debacle. Tennesseans expect increased transparency and greater accountability from their government. Tennesseans expect our rights to be secured rather than trampled with legislation far outside the boundaries we the people have granted them.
This seems to be a direct assault on TN Constitution Article 1, Sections 17 and 19. One could assume suits resulting from cause of action that impeded or infringed upon the rights of Tennesseans are protected in these sections. This attempt to stifle the people’s authority (A.1,S.1) to redress issues with those holding office is either staggeringly bold or amazingly stupid at this time in our nation.
Does this preemptively address HB 0562 which would forbid an executive from declaring a citizen non-essential based on that citizen’s lawful occupation, holding the executive financially liable; a bill which was sent back to committee from a floor vote by the House sponsor of this egregious piece of legislation?
Does this bill attempt to preempt lawsuits by citizens who challenge the constitutionality of the Governor’s ill-devised voucher scam? Do the powers at be fear an accurate judicial assessment of A.11,S.12 and perhaps their accountability in pressing such through?
Does this bill seek to prevent those who hold our rights as being endowed upon us by our Creator and desiring a full exercise of our right to keep and bear arms from initiation of future Hughes v Lee type lawsuits? Are the tyrannical “powers at be” attempting to legislate a loss to the people to cover their inept support of our 2A rights?
Do the sponsors fail to recognize the frustration of most Tennessee citizens? Have they become so insulated in the cocoons of lobbyists and out of state money that they can no longer hear the voice of the people? Have the celebrity and establishment political crowds so obfuscated reason that this bill seems reasonable to them?
I will close with a simple assertion. Our foundational role according to the Declaration of Independence is to secure the rights of the people. That cannot and must not be overshadowed by an attempt to shield the politically affluent from accountability for their actions.”
Like this article?
Anne Lowery
Anne Lowery