Council Members Sue Over TN Sanctuary City Restrictions

Zulfat Suara

Delishia Porterfield

Edited by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, June 25, 2025- Seven council members are suing over a Tennessee State Law established during this year’s special session that introduces harsher punishments for local policymakers who try to establish sanctuary cities. 

At-large council members Delishia Porterfield and Zulfat Suara, along with district council
members Clay Capp (District-6), Brenda Gadd (District-24), Sandra Sepulveda (District-30), Terry Vo (District 17), and Ginny Welsch (District 16) are listed as plaintiffs on the suit.

In 2019, a state law went into effect that prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies. The General Assembly expanded on the law this February and established criminal penalties that go into effect on July 1. Any official convicted of proposing sanctuary policies will also be removed from office.

Terry Vo

Ginny Welsch

“This snapshot of the political climate demonstrates the State’s aggressive anti-
immigrant stance and the federal government’s equally aggressive efforts to attack any local governmental entities or officials that stand in the way of their immigration enforcement goals,” reads the complaint. “Local officials, therefore, face a profound and concrete likelihood of criminal prosecution under the Act.”

The council members are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and claim the law violates First Amendment rights of locally elected officials. The ACLU has been involved in numerous lawsuits taken up against the state. Notably, they challenged Tennessee’s law that restricts gender-transition interventions for minors. The case was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the state's authority to protect kids from life‑altering medical practices in an opinion that came down last week.

During a press conference last Wednesday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti acknowledged ACLU’s involvement in the courtroom battle when explaining the abundance of resources deployed to try to impose policy preferences through lawfare.

Rod's Comment: 

I support the State's ban on sanctuary cities in Tennessee.  Policies that prevent local law enforcement from sharing information about individuals with criminal records with federal immigration authorities can lead to the release of individuals with criminal histories back into the community. Also, it undermines the rule of law in general.  

Should Nashville pass sanctuary policies they would be invalid because of the State ban. That should be sufficient. With the State law in place prohibiting a city from adopting sanctuary policy, should a member of the Metro Council propose such policies, I am certain the Council's legal advisors would inform the Council member that what they were proposing was contrary to state law and advice the member not to introduce it. Should the member introduce it anyway, I would assume the legal analysis would advise the body that the proposed ordinance was contrary to state law, and that should the body adopt the ordinance it would be of no effect. Should the body pass the ordinance anyway, I assume the Nashville mayor would veto it. Should the Council override the veto, the Council would have engaged in some theater and passed an ordinance that would be of no effect. That should be all the safeguards we need to ensure Nashville does not become a sanctuary city. 

I think the recent law making it a crime to propose sanctuary policies was unnecessary and was a kiss-ass, suck-up attempt to show felty to Donald Trump. There are lots of things Metro Council cannot do, that I am sure some of the more liberal members of the Council would like to do. Metro Nashville cannot legalize abortion. Metro Nashville cannot pass so called "inclusionary zoning" forcing developers to build affordable housing. Metro cannot impose wage and price controls. Metro can't impose rent control. Metro cannot pass its own minimum wage law. Metro cannot legalize marijuana. In none of these cases is it a crime to propose an ordinance to accomplish these things. 

Having stated the above however, I think it is foolish to sue the state over the law criminalizing proposing sanctuary policies. Should the lawsuit prevail, what would have been accomplished? A member could then introduce an ordinance that should it pass would have no effect. That is the primary reason I oppose the lawsuit. Secondly, I would not want to be associated with these particular Council Members or the ACLU. 

Top Stories