Certain Tennessee legislators, apparently entirely individuals who identify as Republicans, are advancing SB1958 / HB1971 (Senate Sponsor John Stevens and House Sponsor Andrew Farmer) — a proposal with consequences that reach far beyond ordinary policy debates. These Republicans are attacking your rights, not working as their oaths require to protect and preserve your rights.

This bill intentionally eliminates a long-standing statutory pathway that Tennesseans have used to ask state courts to determine whether state statutes violate the Constitution. While the Republican Legislators who are involved have framed the bill as a mere procedural adjustment (Stevens’ statement in Judiciary Committee on February 17, 2026), its actual and practical effect is far more nefarious and serious: it attempts to remove a clear legal mechanism citizens rely upon to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief before a state law is enforced against them. Indeed, the bill expressly states that citizens would be able to continue to file constitutional challenges to actions taken by local government entities – just not the statutes enacted by the Legislature.

This is not an abstract concern. These Legislators and the bill’s supporters are directly attempting to infringe important rights guaranteed guaranteed to the citizens under the Tennessee Constitution.

Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution declares that “all courts shall be open” and that every person shall have a “remedy by due course of law.” This provision is more than symbolic language. The Tennessee Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized it as a constitutional foundation for court access which involves justiciability principles.

The guarantee of open courts serves a critical function: citizens must be able to seek judicial relief when government action threatens or invades legally protected rights. Obviously constitutionally protected right and constitutionally established liberties lose their meanings if individuals are forced to wait to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute until after they have been damaged, until after penalties are imposed, until after rights are chilled, or until after other damages occur. But, that is exactly what John Stevens said in the Senate Judiciary hearing that he wants and it is apparently what Senators Todd Gardenhire, Paul Rose and Dawn White (all who voted for Stevens’ bill) agree should occur.

Pre-enforcement challenges — lawsuits filed before punishment or prosecution — exist precisely to prevent that harm and to allow citizens to challenge and courts to rule on whether Legislators (or in some instances Governors) have themselves violated the constitutional limits on their authority.

Pre-enforcement review allows citizens to ask a court:

• “Is this statute constitutional?”
• “May the government enforce this law against me?”
• “Must I surrender my rights or risk punishment first?”

Without pre-enforcement review, Tennesseans may face an impossible choice:

The legal system has long recognized that forcing citizens into that dilemma is incompatible with constitutional governance. Further, such a standard, while quite suitable for tyranny is simply incompatible with a constitutional republic where the people, through the constitution, have limited the authority of the government and its actors.

Tennessee precedent acknowledges that sovereign immunity ( a term that Senator Stevens uses as a weapon against the citizens) does not automatically bar suits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against the state. In Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, the Tennessee Supreme Court confirmed that courts may entertain such actions to prevent unconstitutional enforcement. 

This principle reflects a structural truth: in a constitutional republic, one critical and fundamental purpose of the courts is to interpret constitutional limits and abuses on government power.

Under a constitutional republic, it is a simple question: Does the action of the state violate the scope of authority that the people have vested in the state? Removing practical avenues for citizens to invoke judicial review threatens that balance. Again, that is exactly the threat that any Legislator who supports this bill is making against the rights of the citizens.

In this bill, the Republican sponsors and supporters proposes to:

• Delete Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-121
• Create a new cause of action limited only to political subdivisions (counties and cities)
• Explicitly declare that no cause of action exists to challenge the validity or constitutionality of a state statute

In plain terms, the bill seeks to prevent Tennesseans from challenging state laws. It does not even contain the exception that Senator Stevens references in the Senate Judiciary hearing which was, paraphrasing, “unless the individual has been actually harmed or injured by the enforcement of the statute against them.”

Even if alternative legal theories remain, the elimination of a clear, established pathway raises serious constitutional questions under the Tennessee Constitution:

• Article I, Section 17 (Open Courts / Remedy Clause)
• Article II (Separation of Powers)
• Article I, Section 23 (Right to Petition for Redress)

If these Republican Legislators are able to enact SB1958 / HB1971 it would almost certainly be tested in court. Litigation would likely focus on questions such as:

• Can the legislature foreclose meaningful pre-enforcement constitutional review?
• Does eliminating this cause of action impair the “open courts” guarantee?
• Does restricting judicial remedies disrupt separation of powers?
• Are citizens forced to endure enforcement before seeking relief?
• Does this state law violate the rights protected by the Federal Constitution?
• Does this state law violate the Federal Civil Rights Act?

Resolving those questions would not happen quickly. It could require:

• Trial court rulings
• Appeals through Tennessee’s appellate courts
• Eventual review by the Tennessee Supreme Court
• The state of Tennessee, through its Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, would expend substantial amount of taxpayer funds trying to enforce this law against the taxpayers
• Taxpayers would have to raise personal funds to fight against the abuse of power and authority by Tennessee’s legislators who proposed, supported and enacted such a law

That process could span years, during which uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and significant legal costs would burden citizens and organizations alike.

Grassroots advocates routinely rely on courts to:

• Protect free speech
• Protect the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and Tennessee’s rights provisions
• Challenge unlawful regulations
• Defend property rights
• Enforce constitutional protections
• Prevent unconstitutional enforcement actions

A statute that clouds, restricts or, as this one does, bans judicial access affects every constitutional issue, regardless of political alignment or policy preference.

Today’s restriction aimed at one category of litigation can become tomorrow’s barrier to defending other rights.

Rights written on paper are only as strong as the mechanisms available to enforce them. Courts are not adversaries of democracy — they are a co-equal branch that is uniquely and solely charged with saying what the Constitution permits and forbids. Indeed, its one of the main reason that the judicial branch exists is to, at the request of the citizens, determine whether either of the other two branches have abused or violated their constitutional powers and, if so, to declare those actions void and of no effect.

When access to judicial review is narrowed or eliminated, the ability of citizens to defend constitutional liberties is similarly narrowed or eliminated with it. And, that is what Senator Stevens told the Senate Judiciary members he wants to do.

Grassroots engagement remains the most effective safeguard of constitutional rights:

• Stay informed about legislative developments
• Contact your legislators respectfully and clearly
• Share accurate information within your networks
• Encourage thoughtful public discussion
• Support organizations defending constitutional access and liberties
• Act now to find and support election challengers to any legislators who has sponsored or voted in favor of this legislation.

Legislation moves quickly. Public awareness often does not.

SB1958 / HB1971 is not merely a procedural bill as John Stevens claims when he responded to a question in the Senate Judiciary hearing on February 17.

It raises fundamental questions about how Tennesseans can defend their constitutional rights and whether citizens must suffer arrests, convictions, damages or other specific harms by enforcement of the statute against them before seeking judicial intervention.

Regardless of where an individual or organization stands politically, preserving meaningful access to courts is inseparable from preserving liberty itself.