Federal civil rights organizations moved Monday to have a federal judge reopen a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s recently enacted law that makes it a state crime for certain immigrants to remain in the state after a final deportation order. The groups say newly provided facts show the plaintiffs are at risk of prosecution under the statute and that dismissal by U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson was premature.
What the lawyers said
In a filing asking Richardson to set aside his June dismissal, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center supplied additional details about the immigration status of the two named plaintiffs, identified pseudonymously as “Lucy” and “Benjamin.” They contend both individuals have outstanding final removal orders from immigration judges and therefore fall squarely within the law’s criminal prohibition.
“Setting aside the judgement is warranted to prevent manifest injustice,”
The lawyers also asked the court for an expedited ruling, arguing that waiting for appeals would impose unnecessary delay and permit enforcement of the law while legal challenges proceed.
Judge’s initial ruling and standing dispute
Richardson dismissed the class-action complaint last month, concluding the two original plaintiffs lacked standing because, in his view, they would not be subject to arrest under the new statute. He described the case as “more attorney-driven rather than client-driven,” a characterization the civil rights teams dispute.
The suit was filed June 4 with the aim of blocking the law before it took effect July 1. The legislation creates a Class A misdemeanor for immigrants who remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after receiving a final deportation order from an immigration judge. A conviction under the statute carries up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500, according to the complaint.
Broader consequences and enforcement
Civil rights lawyers warned that criminal prosecutions under the state law could lead to extended federal immigration consequences. Separate Tennessee statutes require local jails to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and many county and municipal agencies in the state have entered agreements that enhance coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Those practices, the filing notes, often result in transfer from local custody to federal immigration detention and could put large numbers of noncitizens at risk of removal after a state criminal arrest.
- Plaintiffs: two immigrants living in Tennessee identified in filings as “Lucy” and “Benjamin.”
- Legal claim: constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s criminalization of remaining in the state after final removal orders.
- Relief sought: ask judge to set aside dismissal and reinstate the class-action, with expedited consideration.
| Provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Remaining in Tennessee more than 90 days after a final removal order |
| Penalty | Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail and $2,500 fine |
Next steps in the litigation
If Richardson grants the motion to reopen, the court will return to the merits of whether the state law violates federal law or the Constitution. If he declines, the civil rights groups signaled they will pursue an appeal.
The dispute raises unsettled questions about the interplay between state criminal statutes and federal immigration authority, and whether states may impose their own criminal penalties on noncitizens for immigration-related conduct that federal law already regulates. The outcome could affect enforcement practices and litigation strategies in other states considering similar measures.
