HB1971: Who Gets to Challenge the Government?

When I took office, I took an oath—not to a party, not to a platform—but to the Constitution. That oath carries a simple but powerful responsibility: to protect the rights of the people, even when it is inconvenient, even when it is politically difficult.

I opposed HB1971. The intent while well meaning and even appealing on the surface was to stop “activist judges” or “special interest groups.” But when you look into how this bill could actually work, a very different picture emerges—one that should concern every Tennessean, regardless of political belief. At its core, HB1971 makes it harder for citizens to challenge unconstitutional laws. Not impossible—but harder, slower, and more expensive.

The Real Issue: Rights You Can’t Enforce Aren’t Rights

When the government passes a law that violates the Constitution, the only real check the people have is access to the courts. That’s not a loophole.That’s the system working exactly as designed. HB1971 chips away at that system by limiting how and where citizens can bring those challenges—particularly before a law has already caused harm. And that is where the danger lies.

The amendment removes the primary and most direct pathway citizens use to challenge unconstitutional state laws, while suggesting that more limited or complicated options might still be available elsewhere. In practice, that means more uncertainty, more cost, and more delay for citizens trying to defend their rights. And when it comes to constitutional rights, delay matters. Because rights delayed are often rights denied.

The Lesson from Hughes v. Lee

There are times when a law may appear valid (or not) on its face but carries constitutional problems that only become clear when tested. In Hughes v. Lee, the courts opinion was that the law because violated constitutional protections. That decision didn’t come because someone waited until the damage was fully done—it came because the courts were able to examine the law and determine its constitutionality. Now imagine if citizens had been forced to wait longer or if fewer avenues were available to challenge that law. That is the risk with HB1971. It creates a system where unconstitutional laws can remain in effect longer—not because they are valid, but because it becomes harder to challenge them in time.

Addressing Concerns from Pro-Life Tennesseans

Many pro-life advocates reached out urging support for this bill because of ongoing legal challenges to Tennessee’s Human Life Protection Act. I share your commitment to protecting life. I have supported and will continue to support strong, constitutionally sound pro-life laws. I also understand the frustration with cases like Phillips v. State, where litigation continues even after the legislature has addressed concerns raised by the courts. That frustration is real. But the answer is not to make it harder for Tennesseans to access the courts. Our system is designed so that when a law is challenged, the courts determine whether it complies with the Constitution. That process is not a loophole—it is a safeguard. It is also the same process that has allowed strong pro-life laws across the country to be defended and upheld. If we limit that access, we are not just affecting one issue. We are changing the rules for every constitutional right. The same barriers that might slow down challenges to pro-life laws today could be used tomorrow against efforts to defend the Second Amendment, parental rights, or religious liberty.

The “200-Year Argument”

Some argued that repealing the current law simply returns Tennessee to how things operated for 200 years. Our responsibility today is not to recreate the past—it is to ensure that rights can be enforced in the present.

This Isn’t About Left vs. Right

Supporters of HB1971 argue that it targets “liberal groups.” But laws don’t stay neatly in political boxes. The same legal barriers created today can be used tomorrow—against causes conservatives care deeply about. If we weaken access to the courts, we weaken the ability to defend those rights. The Constitution doesn’t belong to one party. It protects all of us—or it protects none of us.

Some argue that courts shouldn’t be involved in these disputes. But our system was built with checks and balances for a reason. The legislature writes laws. The executive enforces them and the judiciary ensures they comply with the Constitution. That is not “judicial activism.”That is constitutional accountability.

Where We Go From Here

Unfortunately, HB1971 is on its way to becoming law, having passed the Senate narrowly this week. That makes this conversation even more important—not less. Because once a law like this is on the books, its real impact isn’t determined by the intentions behind it, but by how it is used over time. Will it only affect the cases we disagree with today? Or will it be used tomorrow in ways we didn’t anticipate—against the very rights we are trying to protect? Only time will tell.

Rep. Michele Reneau

TN House District 27