A proposed settlement in the lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s sanctuary city voting law has been approved, with the state’s attorney general conceding that the law is unconstitutional. Nashville Chancellor Russell Perkins signed off on the agreement on February 26, 2026, effectively blocking enforcement of criminal penalties against local elected officials who vote on sanctuary city policies. Under the settlement, neither Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk nor Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti will bring criminal charges or removal proceedings against any local official under the challenged provisions, and the state must pay $61,223.51 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Tennessee in June 2025 on behalf of seven Nashville-Davidson County Metro Council members who argued the law violated their constitutional rights. The law, passed during Tennessee’s January 2025 special legislative session, made it a Class E felony for local elected officials to vote in favor of sanctuary city policies, carrying penalties of up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Tennessee Sanctuary City Law That Sparked the Lawsuit?
- How Did the ACLU Challenge the Law in Court?
- What Does the Settlement Actually Require?
- What Happens to Sanctuary City Policies in Tennessee Now?
- Could Similar Laws Be Passed in Other States?
- What Role Did the Nashville Metro Council Members Play?
- What Does This Settlement Signal for the Future of Immigration Policy Fights?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Was the Tennessee Sanctuary City Law That Sparked the Lawsuit?
During a special legislative session in January 2025, Tennessee lawmakers passed a law that went further than any previous anti-sanctuary measure in the country. Rather than simply prohibiting sanctuary policies at the local level, it criminalized the act of voting for them. Any local elected official who cast a vote in favor of a sanctuary city policy — or even a non-binding resolution limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — could be charged with a class E felony. That classification put the offense in the same category as aggravated assault and vehicular homicide under Tennessee law, punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine. The law also gave the attorney general the authority to seek removal of offending officials from office, adding another layer of consequences beyond criminal prosecution.
For Nashville Metro council members, this created an immediate chilling effect. Council members who might have considered debating local immigration policy suddenly faced the prospect of a felony conviction for doing so. The law did not just restrict what local governments could enact — it penalized the democratic process itself by targeting the act of voting. Compared to anti-sanctuary measures in states like Texas and Florida, which generally withhold funding or impose civil penalties on non-compliant jurisdictions, Tennessee’s approach was uniquely punitive. No other state had attempted to impose criminal liability on individual legislators for their votes on policy matters.
How Did the ACLU Challenge the Law in Court?
The ACLU of Tennessee filed suit in June 2025 on behalf of seven Nashville-Davidson county Metro Council members, naming Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti as defendants. The legal challenge rested on three constitutional pillars: the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees, and the Speech and Debate Clause, which provides legislators immunity when acting in their official capacities. The Speech and Debate Clause argument was particularly significant. While most people associate that protection with members of Congress, many state constitutions contain analogous provisions, and the principle extends broadly to the idea that legislators must be free to deliberate and vote without fear of criminal prosecution for their legislative acts.
The ACLU argued that Tennessee’s law struck at the heart of representative democracy by turning a core legislative function — casting a vote — into a criminal offense. However, it is worth noting that the lawsuit targeted only the criminal penalty and removal provisions of the law. The ACLU did not challenge Tennessee’s broader authority to prohibit sanctuary policies as a matter of state law. This distinction matters because even with the settlement, local governments in Tennessee still cannot adopt sanctuary city policies. The victory was narrower than some headlines suggested: officials won the right to vote and debate freely, but the substantive prohibition on sanctuary policies remains on the books.
What Does the Settlement Actually Require?
The proposed settlement, approved by Nashville Chancellor Russell Perkins on February 26, 2026, is built around a central concession: Attorney General Skrmetti acknowledged that the challenged provisions of the law are unconstitutional. This is not a technicality or a procedural dismissal. The state’s top legal officer effectively admitted the law could not survive constitutional scrutiny, which carries weight if similar legislation is attempted in the future. Under the terms of the agreement, neither DA Funk nor AG Skrmetti will bring criminal charges or removal proceedings against any local official under the challenged provisions. The state is also required to pay $61,223.51 in attorneys’ fees and costs to the ACLU.
For context, that figure is modest compared to many civil rights settlements — the legal team likely invested far more in billable hours than what the fee award covers, suggesting the priority was the constitutional precedent rather than a financial recovery. The ACLU characterized the outcome as a victory for local democratic governance. In a press release, the organization emphasized that elected officials should never face imprisonment for performing the basic functions of their office. The settlement does not, however, result in a formal court ruling that could serve as binding precedent in other jurisdictions. Because the case resolved through agreement rather than a judicial opinion, its persuasive value in future litigation is somewhat limited.
What Happens to Sanctuary City Policies in Tennessee Now?
The settlement creates a somewhat unusual legal landscape. Sanctuary policies remain illegal in Tennessee — that part of the law was not challenged and stands untouched. But the enforcement mechanism that gave the prohibition its teeth, the threat of felony prosecution and removal from office, has been dismantled. Local officials can now discuss, debate, and vote on immigration-related resolutions without risking criminal charges, even if those resolutions cannot take effect. This creates a practical tradeoff. On one hand, Tennessee localities still lack the authority to formally adopt sanctuary policies, and any attempt to do so could face other legal challenges or state intervention through non-criminal means.
On the other hand, the chilling effect on local democratic deliberation has been lifted. A council member who wants to introduce a resolution expressing a position on immigration policy, even a symbolic one, no longer faces the prospect of a prison sentence. The comparison to other states is instructive. In Texas, Senate Bill 4 allows the attorney general to sue local governments that adopt sanctuary policies and seek removal of officials who refuse to comply, but it does not impose criminal penalties on legislators for their votes. Florida’s approach similarly relies on suspension of officials and financial penalties rather than criminal prosecution. Tennessee now falls closer to these models, where enforcement operates through civil and administrative channels rather than the criminal justice system.
Could Similar Laws Be Passed in Other States?
The Tennessee settlement should serve as a warning to other state legislatures considering criminal penalties for local officials’ legislative votes, but it is not a guaranteed shield. Because the case settled rather than producing a published court opinion, there is no binding judicial precedent that courts in other states are obligated to follow. The attorney general’s concession that the law is unconstitutional carries persuasive weight, but a different state’s attorney general could take a different position and force the issue to trial. The constitutional arguments that defeated the Tennessee law — particularly the Speech and Debate Clause protection for legislative acts — are broadly applicable, but their strength varies depending on each state’s constitutional provisions. Some state constitutions offer strong protections for legislators’ official acts, while others are less explicit.
A state that lacks a strong speech and debate provision might see different litigation outcomes, though the First Amendment arguments would remain available regardless. There is also a limitation worth noting for local officials in Tennessee and elsewhere. The settlement protects the right to vote and deliberate, but it does not protect officials who take executive or administrative action to implement sanctuary policies outside the legislative process. A mayor who directs police to stop cooperating with federal immigration authorities, for example, might face a different legal analysis than a council member who votes on a resolution. The line between legislative and executive action matters, and the settlement’s protections are confined to the legislative side.
What Role Did the Nashville Metro Council Members Play?
The seven Nashville-Davidson County Metro Council members who served as plaintiffs took on meaningful personal risk by challenging the law. At the time the lawsuit was filed in June 2025, the criminal provisions were technically enforceable, meaning any of them could have faced prosecution for their legislative activities. By putting their names on the case, they tested whether a state could truly imprison local legislators for casting votes the state disapproved of.
Their willingness to serve as plaintiffs was essential because constitutional challenges generally require parties with standing — individuals who face a concrete and imminent threat of harm from the law in question. These council members, as elected officials whose legislative duties could trigger felony prosecution, were precisely the right plaintiffs to bring the case. Without individuals willing to step forward, the law might have remained on the books unchallenged, its chilling effect suppressing local debate on immigration policy indefinitely.
What Does This Settlement Signal for the Future of Immigration Policy Fights?
The Tennessee sanctuary city law settlement reflects a broader national tension between state and local governments over immigration enforcement. As federal immigration policy continues to generate heated debate, states will likely keep testing the boundaries of how far they can go in compelling local cooperation. The Tennessee case establishes that criminalizing legislative votes crosses a constitutional line, but it leaves plenty of room for states to use other enforcement tools.
Looking ahead, the more likely battleground will involve funding penalties, civil liability, and administrative removal mechanisms rather than criminal prosecution. The Tennessee experience demonstrated that criminal penalties against legislators generate strong constitutional pushback and are difficult to defend in court. Future legislation in Tennessee and other states will probably be drafted to avoid the specific constitutional vulnerabilities that doomed this law, focusing on institutional consequences for non-compliant jurisdictions rather than personal criminal liability for individual legislators.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Tennessee local officials now adopt sanctuary city policies?
No. The settlement only eliminated the criminal penalties and removal proceedings for voting on such policies. Sanctuary city policies themselves remain illegal under Tennessee law. Officials can debate and vote freely, but the underlying prohibition on sanctuary policies still stands.
Does this settlement apply to all local officials in Tennessee or just the Nashville plaintiffs?
The settlement’s terms apply to the Davidson County DA and the state attorney general, effectively preventing enforcement of the criminal provisions statewide. While only seven Nashville Metro Council members were named as plaintiffs, the attorney general’s concession that the law is unconstitutional means no local official in Tennessee should face prosecution under these provisions.
How much money did the state have to pay in the settlement?
Tennessee is required to pay $61,223.51 in attorneys’ fees and costs to the ACLU. There were no individual damages awarded to the plaintiff council members, as the case was about constitutional rights rather than financial compensation.
Could Tennessee pass a revised version of this law?
Potentially. The settlement addressed the specific provisions that criminalized legislative votes and allowed removal of officials. The legislature could attempt to pass a new law with different enforcement mechanisms, such as civil penalties or funding restrictions, though any new law would also need to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Does this settlement set a legal precedent for other states?
Not in a binding sense. Because the case was resolved through a settlement rather than a court ruling, it does not create formal legal precedent. However, the attorney general’s concession of unconstitutionality and the underlying constitutional arguments would likely be cited in challenges to similar laws elsewhere.