Committee advances bill to narrow who may sue the state after hours of constitutional debate

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday advanced HB 19‑71, a bill its sponsor described as restoring the law to its pre‑2018 form by narrowing who may bring a cause of action challenging government action.

The measure generated heated debate and expert testimony. John Gentry argued the proposal would curtail citizens’ longstanding ability to ask courts to declare laws unconstitutional and would ‘‘oppress the right to apply to those invested with powers of government.’’ Gentry told the committee that the Tennessee constitution ‘‘does not require that you suffer harm’’ before asking a court to intervene and warned that the bill ‘‘makes a mockery of the right of citizens to petition the legislature.’’ (John Gentry)

Matt Rice, solicitor general in the attorney general’s office, disputed that characterization and told lawmakers the bill ‘‘returns the law’’ to the pre‑2018 regime that the state’s courts applied under the Colonial Pipeline framework, under which plaintiffs must typically sue a government official with a credible threat of enforcement rather than the state writ large. Rice said the change ‘‘does not limit any other cause of action or waiver of sovereign immunity to vindicate rights under the Tennessee or U.S. constitutions’’ and defended the bill as correcting what he and others view as judicial expansion beyond legislative intent. (Matt Rice, Solicitor General of Tennessee)

Committee members split on the policy and implications. Representative Bolzlow and other supporters said the 2018 statute opened the door to broad policy‑based litigation that imposes heavy discovery burdens on the state. Opponents, including members who cited constituent concerns, argued the bill will make it harder for Tennesseans to obtain pre‑enforcement review of potentially unconstitutional laws and could require people to wait until they are prosecuted to challenge a statute.

After more than three hours of testimony and questions, the committee voted to advance HB 19‑71 to calendar and rules, 11 yeas to 9 nays. The vote sends the bill forward for further consideration; supporters said meritorious claims can still be litigated under the restored framework, while opponents said the change raises substantial procedural and constitutional concerns.

Next steps: HB 19‑71 will be scheduled for further consideration on the calendar if the chamber’s leadership brings it up. No implementation date was discussed in committee.