A federal court has cleared the way for Tennessee to enforce its own law making illegal entry into the United States a state crime, marking a significant win for states pushing to assert their own authority over immigration enforcement. The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rejected a challenge that argued the state law was preempted by federal immigration statutes.
The decision places Tennessee alongside Texas as a state that has survived federal court scrutiny of legislation designed to let local and state law enforcement act against illegal border crossings, rather than leaving the job entirely to federal agencies. Breitbart reported on the ruling, which came after the law faced immediate legal challenge from immigrant advocacy groups following its passage.
Tennessee's law, known as HB 2840, creates a state-level misdemeanor offense for entering or remaining in the state without lawful immigration status. The statute mirrors portions of federal immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which makes illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. Under the Tennessee version, a first offense carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
The law also authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to arrest individuals they have probable cause to believe have entered the country illegally. Upon arrest, officers are directed to contact federal immigration authorities for verification of the individual's status.
Republican Governor Bill Lee signed the measure into law, calling it a necessary step to protect Tennessee communities. Lee stated that the federal government had "failed to secure the border" and that Tennessee had "a right and a responsibility to act."
A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, filed suit in the Middle District of Tennessee shortly after the law's enactment. The plaintiffs argued that HB 2840 was preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, contending that immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal function.
The district court initially issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. That lower court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, reasoning that the law intruded on the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate immigration.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the state law did not conflict with federal immigration statutes but instead complemented them. Skrmetti's office maintained that nothing in federal law expressly prohibits states from enacting parallel criminal penalties for conduct that is already illegal under federal law.
A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's injunction in a 2-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge John Bush held that Tennessee's law does not conflict with federal immigration enforcement because it "operates in the same direction" as federal law rather than against it.
"A state law that imposes penalties for conduct already prohibited by federal law does not, by that fact alone, intrude upon federal authority or create an obstacle to federal enforcement."
The majority opinion drew a distinction between laws that regulate immigration, which remains a federal prerogative, and laws that impose criminal penalties for conduct that violates both state and federal standards. The court found that HB 2840 falls into the latter category.
Judge Bush pointed to the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States, which struck down portions of Arizona's SB 1070 but left open the question of whether states could criminalize conduct that federal law also prohibits. The Sixth Circuit majority read that precedent as permitting state action where the state law does not create an independent immigration scheme or interfere with federal enforcement priorities.
The case echoes a parallel legal battle in Texas, where a federal appeals court cleared Texas to arrest suspected illegal border crossers under state law. Both cases have tested the boundaries of state authority in an area long dominated by federal control.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore dissented, arguing that the majority's reasoning "opens the door to a patchwork of state immigration laws" that would undermine the federal government's ability to set enforcement priorities. Moore wrote that the Supreme Court's Arizona decision established a clear principle: states may assist federal immigration enforcement but may not create their own parallel criminal regimes.
"The majority treats Arizona v. United States as a permission slip rather than a warning. The Constitution vests immigration authority in the federal government, and no amount of state frustration with federal enforcement choices changes that structural reality."
Moore also raised concerns about the practical effects of the law, noting that it could lead to racial profiling and that local officers lack the training and resources to make reliable determinations about immigration status in the field.
The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting Tennessee's position. The Department of Justice argued that HB 2840 "supports rather than undermines" federal enforcement goals and that the federal government welcomes state cooperation in addressing illegal immigration.
This stance represents a sharp departure from the position taken by previous administrations. Under President Obama, the DOJ actively challenged state immigration enforcement laws in Arizona and elsewhere. The Trump administration's support for Tennessee's law signals a broader policy of encouraging state-level immigration enforcement.
The DOJ has taken an aggressive posture on immigration policy across multiple fronts. In one recent action, the department sued Massachusetts and Rhode Island over in-state tuition policies for noncitizens, arguing those states had crossed a different legal line by extending benefits in ways that conflict with federal law.
The Sixth Circuit's ruling lifts the preliminary injunction, meaning Tennessee can begin enforcing HB 2840 while the case proceeds on the merits in the district court. The plaintiffs could seek rehearing en banc before the full Sixth Circuit or petition the Supreme Court for review.
Legal observers expect the case to continue generating litigation. The central preemption question remains unsettled at the Supreme Court level, and a circuit split could develop if other appellate courts reach different conclusions on similar state laws. A federal judge in a separate case blocked a Texas immigration law and called the state enforcement push a form of "nullification," illustrating how divided the federal judiciary remains on this question.
Several other states are watching the Tennessee case closely. Legislators in Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana have introduced or are drafting similar measures. A favorable final ruling for Tennessee could accelerate that trend, while a reversal could slow it.
The ruling arrives at a moment when state and local involvement in immigration enforcement has become one of the most contested legal and political issues in the country. Conservative states have increasingly moved to fill what they describe as a vacuum left by inconsistent federal enforcement, while progressive jurisdictions have moved in the opposite direction by adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
That tension has played out in courtrooms and courthouses alike. In Utah, two court clerks were indicted for allegedly helping an illegal alien evade ICE agents inside a courthouse, underscoring how deeply the enforcement debate has penetrated even the judicial system itself.
Attorney General Skrmetti framed the ruling as vindication of Tennessee's approach. In a statement after the decision, Skrmetti said the state "will not wait for Washington to do its job" and that HB 2840 gives law enforcement "the tools they need to protect Tennessee families."
The ACLU responded by calling the decision "dangerous" and pledging to continue the legal fight. ACLU attorney Lucas Guttentag said the organization would "pursue every available legal avenue" to block the law's enforcement, arguing that it "invites discrimination and chaos."
The Supreme Court has shown interest in the intersection of state authority and immigration enforcement in recent terms. Justices Thomas and Alito have publicly criticized the Court for declining cases that raise these questions, including a dispute over Florida's lawsuit concerning immigrant truck driver licenses. If a circuit split develops from cases like Tennessee's, the high court may have little choice but to take up the preemption question directly.
Governor Lee's office said the state is prepared to begin enforcement "immediately" and that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has issued guidance to local law enforcement agencies on how to implement the law. The guidance reportedly instructs officers to contact ICE after any arrest under HB 2840 and to document the basis for probable cause in writing.
Critics of the law warn that enforcement will fall disproportionately on Latino communities and that the probable-cause standard is too vague to prevent pretextual stops. Supporters counter that the law applies to anyone in the state without lawful status, regardless of national origin, and that probable cause is the same constitutional standard used for all criminal arrests.
The case now returns to the district court, where a full trial on the merits could take months. In the meantime, Tennessee becomes one of a small but growing number of states actively enforcing their own criminal penalties for illegal entry.
For years, states argued they were powerless to act while the federal government failed to secure the border. The Sixth Circuit just told Tennessee it does not have to wait for permission.
