Tennessee Republican Legislators are rushing to repeal a statute that expressly authorizes citizens to ask a court to rule on the constitutionality of state statutes without demonstrating that the statute has been enforced against them.   These Republican legislators, most of whom are in leadership, are trying to repeal existing law with a significantly narrowed law that expressly prohibits citizens from challenging the constitutionality of the state’s statutes – including significantly the ones that these very Republican Legislators are trying to pass this year.

These Republicans are pushing Senate Bill 1958 and its companion, House Bill 1971.   In the Senate, the prime sponsor of the legislation is John Stevens (the Senate’s Deputy Speaker).  However, several other high ranking Republican Senators have co-sponsored the legislation including Lt. Governor Randy McNally, Jack Johnson (Caucus Leader), Bo Watson (Finance Chair), Ken Yager (Caucus Chairman), Ferrell Haile (Speaker Pro Tempore) and Todd Gardenhire (Chairman Judiciary Committee who announced his sponsorship on the video). These Republicans collectively represent most of the Republican Senate leadership. 

   

In the House, the prime sponsor is Republican Andrew Farmer.  Significantly, the co-sponsors include Speaker Cameron Sexton, William Lamberth (Caucus Leader), Jeremy Faison (Caucus Chairman), Fred Atchley (Assistant Floor Leader), Mark Cochran (Assistant Leader), Kip Capley (Secretary), Gary Hicks (Finance Chair), Johnny Garrett (Whip), John Crawford (State and Local Government Chair) and Ron Travis – again a list comprised largely of individuals who are House Republican leaders.

What does the legislation do?  

It repeals Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-121 which was enacted 8 years and which specifically provided: 

Many Tennesseans would have assumed that the constitution itself gives the people the right to challenge in the courts the constitutionality of enactments by the Legislature (i.e., statutes) or the actions of the administration (i.e., rules or regulation).   But, this 8 year old statute has been cited by courts several times as providing a jurisdiction basis for the courts and as establishing “standing” for citizens who seek to challenge the constitutionality of state actions (e.g., statutes, regulations, executive orders, etc.)

Part of the reason for the statute’s significance is that prior Tennessee law, largely developed by the courts at the urging of the State, prohibited constitutional challenges to a statute unless the individual plaintiff could demonstrate that they had sustained some degree of unique harm or injury because the statute had been enforced against them. That limitation largely prevented “pre-enforcement” or even “facial” challenges to a statute and resulted in such lawsuits frequently being dismissed by the courts.

The legislation proposed by these Republicans expressly deletes the prior law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-121).   It then expressly prohibits lawsuits by citizens that seek a court ruling on the constitutionality of state statutes and it prohibits lawsuits seeking constitutional relief against state officials.   The proposed legislation states:

Although some legislators may try to argue that this change is necessary to eliminate litigation expenses for the state caused by the existing statute’s much broader citizen access to the courts, the Legislative Fiscal note concludes otherwise: “Any fiscal impact to state or local government is estimated to be not significant.” This negates any honest argument that defending constitutional challenges under the existing law is wasting taxpayer resources.

The rush to enact this legislation by Republican leaders raises series questions about the necessity and motives for their actions. Are they protecting the rights of the citizens and their constitutionally protected rights or are they trying to protect clearly unconstitutional statutes from court challenges after cases such as Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. in which a three-judge trial court ruled in August 2025 that two of Tennessee’s long standing criminal statutes involving 2nd Amendment issues were facially unconstitutional?

Representative Andrew Farmer presented the legislation in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee on February 11, 2026.   At that time, it passed on a recorded vote of 6-1.   Who voted to take away rights of citizens (with or without the enabling statute) to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes?  

Those Republican House members voting to approve the legislation were Lowell Russell (the subcommittee chair and appointed by Cameron Sexton), Elaine Davis, Andrew Farmer, Johnny Garrett, Tom Stinnett, and Chris Todd (recall that Rep. Todd was one of the first Republicans to post on social media that the state should appeal the ruling in Hughes v. Lee).  The only subcommittee member to vote against the bill was Democrat Gloria Johnson. 

Senator John Stevens presented his legislation to the Senate Judiciary on February 17, 2026.   Fortunately, prior to the hearing that day citizens learned of the legislation and its effect.  Reportedly over 10,000 citizens responded to “calls to action” by Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Stands and grassroots activists across the state.  The citizens were outraged and acted quickly to let their voices and opposition be heard. 

When the Senate Judiciary considered the Stevens’ bill, Republican Senators Todd Gardenhire (chairman), Paul Rose, John Stevens and Dawn White (all Republicans) voted in favor of the bill.   Republican Senators Bobby Harshbarger and Brent  Taylor as well as Democrat Senators Sara Kyle and London Lamar voted against the bill.   Republican Senator Kerry Roberts was the potential swing vote. Had he voted yes, the bill would have passed in the committee.  Had he voted no, it would have died in committee.   Without statement as to why, Kerry Roberts abstained which had the effect of keeping the bill in the committee but not killing it since the resulting vote was 4 in favor, 4 opposed and 1 present not voting. The Senate bill is not defeated – it remains alive and could potentially be recalled to the Senate Floor with almost no public notice or even scheduled for a rehearing in the Senate Judiciary. It would have been better, much better, to have 5 “no” votes.

The Senate Judiciary Committee video reflects that Kerry Roberts asked some pointed questions of Senator Stevens who said that the intent of the legislation was to prohibit constitutional challenges unless the individual bringing the action had been specifically injured by the statute’s application to them.   Essentially, the Republicans supporting this legislation are seeking to prohibit future facial or pre-enforcement constitutional challenges. 

Stevens also responded, suspiciously, to a question by Senator Kyle that the bill is not substantive but its merely a “process” change – to block lawsuits from citizens who seek judicial determinations on the constitutionality of laws unless the citizen can demonstrate some specific injury or impact on the individual as a result the state’s enforcement of the law. One really has to wonder how Stevens could justify his legislation which is specifically designed to deny citizens access to the courts to bring constitutional challenges to state statutes (while expressly allowing such challenges to local government actions) as have no substantive impact on the rights of citizens.

The House Bill is scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on February 18, 2026. That committee is chaired by the bill’s prime sponsor, Andrew Farmer. And, with co-sponsors including Speaker Sexton, William Lamberth, Jeremy Faison and Johnny Garrett there is a high probability it will be approved in that committee with no public debate or opposition testimony. If it occurs, it would likely be merely choreographed to minimize a public record of statements by those supporting the clearly substantive legislation.

Fact: Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-121 expressly creates a cause of action for “any affected person” seeking declaratory/injunctive relief for unconstitutional governmental action; no damages. Removing this language eliminates a clear, citizen-facing statutory doorway that plaintiffs can cite when the State argues lack of standing/cause of action.

Fact: The legislation that is being rushed and its replacement provision expressly excludes challenges to the constitutionality of any state statute under that section. This is likely to become a central basis for early dismissal motions in state-statute constitutional cases.

Fact: The replacement provision is limited to actions of “only a political subdivision.” This draws a bright line: local government actions remain within the chapter’s cause-of-action framework and subject to both facial and pre-enforcement constitutional challenges. State statutes do not.

Proposed discussion topics with or email questions to Legislators

The evidence is overwhelming that the Republican leadership is fully determined to block the ability of Tennesseans (and interested organizations like the Tennessee Firearms Association) from challenging in Tennessee’s courts the constitutionality of the state’s statutes – not just Tennessee’s gun control laws but a wide spectrum of laws enacted by the Legislature.

A change in the law like this could not only make it harder and in some instances could provide a basis for the state to get citizen lawsuits – that are otherwise fully valid – dismissed on technical grounds rather than addressed on the merits.    Such a change is pure tyranny.   It is pure protectionism without the checks, balances and accountability that the separation of powers doctrine is intended to provide. 

The proposed legislation has one purpose – to deny citizens access to the courts to challenge state statutes that are obviously unconstitutional.

If you want to get involved in the grassroots fight to protect your rights AGAINST Legislators such as these, considering joining and supporting the Tennessee Firearms Association.