S

Despite a newly filed lawsuit and months of discourse over a similar bill, Tennessee lawmakers will consider another bill that could send elected officials to jail if they run afoul of immigration enforcement efforts.

Back in June, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and a handful of Metro Council members filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that a sweeping immigration bill passed during the January special legislative session violates the rights of public officials by threatening to jail those who vote in support of so-called “sanctuary city” policies.

Still, a top Republican lawmaker is advocating for another immigration bill with another felony charge for public officials.

“I hope no one ever gets charged, no DA or the Attorney General ever has to utilize these statutes moving forward. That’s not my ultimate goal,” Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) said earlier this month. “But if someone does decide that they want to violate these [bills], then there needs to be consequences.”

In January, Johnson sponsored the special session bill, which, among a litany of other new immigration policies, established a Class E felony charge for those who vote in favor of sanctuary city policies, despite a 2019 state law already nullifying any such policy.

The bill passed during the whirlwind special session, despite concerns about its impact on the democratic process, fiery opposition from one Republican and one of the legislature’s own attorneys describing the policy as “Constitutionally suspect.” Legal threats happened just as fast with the ACLU and some councilmembers immediately denouncing the policy, and Metro’s Immigrant Caucus sending out a one-line statement the following day reading, “see you in court.”

After a dragnet immigration sweep in Nashville in May highlighted Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s year-old executive order requiring the city to report interactions with federal immigration enforcement, Republican lawmakers began accusing the mayor of “doxing” the federal agents by naming them in incident reports published after stops were made.

In a direct response to O’Connell, Johnson filed a bill this month that would allow broader exemptions to public records when law enforcement is involved in immigration actions and, again, threatens elected officials who share that information with removal from office and a Class E Felony.

In an interview before the lawsuit was filed, Johnson told the Banner that the new bill was intended to “build on” the special session bill because of a need for “accountability.”

Asked if the lawsuit influenced his plans with the new bill, Johnson doubled down this week.

“The ACLU’s latest lawsuit is just another predictable attempt to block common-sense legislation passed by the General Assembly. It won’t deter our efforts to advance Senate Bill 1464, which aims to hold public officials accountable for endangering law enforcement officers by unlawfully releasing their personal or operational information,” Johnson said in an emailed statement. “Unlike some blue-city elected officials, my colleagues and I in the General Assembly are committed to upholding the rule of law and defending those who serve and protect our communities.” 

Intimidation tactic

While the new bill does not penalize officials for voting a specific way, it is an extension of messaging by Johnson and other Republicans that elected officials who hinder their immigration goals may face jail time.

Bryan Davidson, policy director for the ACLU of Tennessee, told the Banner on Thursday that both efforts are an attempt to intimidate officials who disagree.

“Not every law needs to come with a felony price tag — there are many, well-established ways to make sure laws are followed that don’t involve locking up elected officials for every misstep,” Davidson said. “While there are differences between this bill and SB6002, this bill continues SB6002’s unprecedented efforts to use the threat of criminal prosecution to intimidate state and local governmental officials into compliance – a trend toward authoritarianism that should trouble all Tennesseans.”

The issue of whether identifying federal agents involved in immigration enforcement is considered “doxing” has become central to discourse in Nashville, where Republican lawmakers have accused the Democratic mayor of jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement by naming agents in post-incident reports.

At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles requested that two Congressional committees investigate O’Connell, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn introduced the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, also directly blaming O’Connell.

“Doxing” or “doxxing” is a relatively new term that generally means sharing sensitive personal information publicly to harm or allow others to harm someone, but it is not defined in state or federal law.

Notably, Johnson sponsored a non-immigration related bill about threatening violence and doxing, which will go into effect in July, that describes the offense as someone “posting on a publicly accessible website the telephone number or home address of an individual with the intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to the individual or a member of the individual’s family or household,” which O’Connell is not accused of doing. 

By any other name

Asked if sharing the name of a law enforcement officer in a public report after an incident — which happens in nearly all interactions between any law enforcement and the public — was “doxing,” Johnson conceded it may not have been, but argues it could impact law enforcement.

“It might involve some type of undercover operation, but even if it’s not undercover, exposing the names of specific individuals — be it federal law enforcement or state law or local law enforcement — and specifically exposing the identities of those who are involved in a particular type of law enforcement, is unnecessary and it can potentially jeopardize their safety,” Johnson said.

“Whether that meets the official definition of doxing — that’s a term that’s used a lot out there — I don’t know,” Johnson added. “But if that’s not the appropriate term, then I’ll just say revealing the personal identity and personal information of these law enforcement men and women is problematic.”

Johnson’s policies are also, at least in part, driven by the popularity of strong-armed immigration enforcement among his largely Republican voter base, amid President Donald Trump’s similar nationwide push.

“I recognize that immigration enforcement is a hot button issue right now, but the vast, vast majority of my constituents, and I think the people of Tennessee, are very happy to see the Trump administration and ICE coming into our state to get these violent people off of our streets,” Johnson said. “And if there’s someone out there who doesn’t agree with that activity, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to take action that could jeopardize the safety of law enforcement officers.”

Asked why immigration enforcement officials require additional protections not afforded to most law enforcement officers, Johnson said he would consider sponsoring similar policies in the future to protect others.

“If I found out that someone was trying to expose the identity of TBI agents or other law enforcement in an attempt to thwart their lawful activity, then we would look at that as well,” Johnson said.

This story is courtesy of the Nashville Banner. Sign up for their newsletter.