Tennessee’s Smuggling Law: Housing Immigrants with Status Could Charge

(TENNESSEE) Tennessee’s new human smuggling law, in effect since July, now exposes landlords, churches, charities, and even families to felony charges for housing immigrants if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “determination” says the person once entered or remained in the United States unlawfully. The statute—Senate Bill 392 / House Bill 322—took effect on July 1, 2025, and remains enforceable during an active federal court challenge. As of September 11, 2025, no injunction has been granted, leaving tenants, pastors, shelter directors, and relatives of mixed‑status families uncertain about what daily help could trigger prosecution.

What the law says and how it works

The law defines “harboring” to include providing shelter or concealing the whereabouts of a person known to have entered or remained unlawfully. It raises the offense if any shelter is provided “for commercial advantage or private financial gain.” That financial‑gain language explicitly includes rent, donations, or grants.

• Practical examples of who could be exposed:
  • A landlord leasing an apartment and collecting rent.
  • A church accepting tithes that support a shelter ministry.
  • A nonprofit receiving a foundation grant to operate a family shelter.

A central feature — and the law’s fulcrum — is that it allows prosecution “as determined by ICE,” even if an immigration judge later finds the person lawfully present. ICE administrative records and database entries reflecting a person’s status at a given time can therefore trigger state charges, regardless of later immigration court outcomes.

Penalties and classifications

• Class E felony for “harboring” (the statute’s base felony level).
  • Class E felonies still carry prison time and a criminal record with long-term collateral consequences.
• Class A felony for “aggravated human smuggling” when the sheltered person is younger than 13 — the highest felony class with the most severe penalties.
• Misdemeanor tier: $1,000 fine per person for smaller‑scale harboring.

Important: A Class E felony in Tennessee can lead to one to six years in prison (plus fines and collateral effects). A Class A felony carries substantially higher sentencing exposure.

Key legal and practical concerns

• The statute ties charging power to an ICE determination rather than a final immigration court judgment. That means:
  • People later granted asylum, VAWA relief, a visa, or other lawful status could still produce an ICE record that allows charging under Tennessee law.
  • Prosecutors could initiate cases based on ICE’s snapshot even where federal adjudication later finds lawful presence.
• The statute’s financial gain language is broad:
  • Rent is the clearest example for landlords.
  • Donations or grants that support sheltering operations could be interpreted as private financial gain for churches and nonprofits, even when funds are used to operate services rather than personally profit.
  • Organizations that separate shelter program budgets from general funds are taking steps to limit exposure, but the text’s reach remains uncertain.

• The knowledge element is another source of risk:
  • The law criminalizes harboring when a person “knows” someone entered or remained unlawfully.
  • Ordinary remarks (e.g., a tenant saying they crossed without inspection years ago) could be construed as knowledge and create risk for landlords or hosts.

Litigation: who sued and why

A coalition filed suit on June 20. Plaintiffs include the Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a local landlord, and a resident.

Their legal claims:
1. Federal preemption — immigration enforcement is a federal domain; states cannot create conflicting regimes.
2. Vagueness — terms like harbor, financial gain, and reliance on ICE determinations are open‑ended and leave people guessing.
3. First Amendment — the law burdens religious ministries and charitable acts rooted in faith by threatening felony liability for routine ministry activities.

Representing plaintiffs are:
– The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law
– The American Immigration Council
– The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC)

Court developments and the ICE‑trigger question

During a September 10 hearing, the federal judge asked the state whether a mistaken ICE determination could lead to wrongful arrests under the statute. The state has not agreed to pause enforcement while that question is litigated, and the judge had not issued an injunction as of September 11, 2025.

• Plaintiffs seek an injunction to halt enforcement while the constitutional issues are decided.
• The state argues the law targets knowingly sheltering people for money and aligns with federal aims.
• Plaintiffs counter that the ICE‑trigger creates a shortcut to charging that chills protected conduct before immigration courts resolve status.

Community response and chilling effects

Reports across Tennessee indicate widespread uncertainty and a chilling effect:

• Landlords are:
  • Refusing lease renewals without immigration paperwork.
  • Asking for documentation many tenants legitimately do not carry.
  • Potentially initiating informal or de facto evictions out of caution.
• Churches and nonprofits are:
  • Pausing overnight shelter programs.
  • Postponing or retooling housing projects.
  • Reconsidering whether grant‑funded rent assistance could be treated as felony conduct.
• Families and informal hosts are asking:
  • Would a nephew sleeping on a couch or contributing groceries count as private financial gain?
  • Does a cousin’s $100 toward utilities turn a safe household into potential felony exposure?

Advocates warn this dynamic creates a harmful loop:
1. Fear prompts landlords and shelters to turn people away.
2. Evicted or rejected people seek emergency help (couches, informal shelter).
3. Those hosting them face criminal exposure under the law, increasing incentives to refuse help again.

Enforcement mechanics and prosecutorial discretion

• The statute makes it a crime to “transport, intentionally conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” for the purpose of “commercial advantage or private financial gain” anyone the person “knows” has entered or remained unlawfully “as determined by ICE.”
• ICE records are administrative and change over time; Tennessee’s statute treats the ICE entry as sufficient for state charging.

Prosecutorial reality:
– Resource limitations and local discretion mean enforcement will vary widely by county.
– Some district attorneys may prioritize trafficking cases; others may pursue landlord complaints or neighborhood tips.
– Defense lawyers warn that vagueness plus local discretion invites uneven enforcement and disparate outcomes across county lines.

Practical advice being recommended

Legal groups and advocates suggest practical steps for housing providers and faith groups:

• Use written leases and consistent, neutral tenant‑screening criteria that do not discriminate on the basis of national origin.
• Document lease and ministry decisions scrupulously (who was offered shelter, donations accepted, who stayed overnight).
• Consult counsel before launching or continuing shelter programs or rent‑assistance schemes.
• Track grants and donations carefully; consider separating shelter funds from general budgets — though how much that helps under the statute is uncertain.
• Avoid interrogating tenants about immigration status in ways that might create a “knowledge” inference; instead follow neutral screening practices.

Public‑safety and systemic consequences

Advocates emphasize real‑world harms beyond individual prosecutions:

• Survivors of abuse may avoid shelters if churches or nonprofits decline to help out of fear.
• Parents might avoid medical care or school interactions if housing instability increases.
• Schools, hospitals, social services, and law enforcement could see greater strain as private safety nets retrench.

Plaintiffs warn these outcomes are foreseeable and not hypothetical: shelters may refuse families (including those fleeing violence), worsening public‑safety and health outcomes.

Political context and broader implications

• Sponsors moved the bill quickly after its signing on May 9, 2025, and it had an extensive sponsor list in both chambers.
• Supporters frame the law as a state tool to reduce unlawful entry and trafficking and to align state penalties with federal anti‑harboring goals.
• Critics argue the statute lacks precision, does not specifically target traffickers, and instead ensnares ordinary housing arrangements and charitable work.

Analysis from VisaVerge.com highlights two features that make Tennessee’s law notable:
1. Reliance on an ICE determination at the charging stage.
2. Inclusion of donations and grants in the definition of financial benefit.

Legal observers note other states might try similar language if Tennessee’s statute survives judicial review.

Stakes for households and institutions

• Children under 13 present the gravest risk: shelters serving families with young children could be exposed to Class A felony charges.
• People who later become lawful through asylum, VAWA, or other relief may still produce an ICE flag that prompts charging at the state level.
• County systems (jails, probation, social services) and public institutions (schools, hospitals) may see increases in demand if private and faith‑based safety nets pull back.

What happens next

• The judge has not ruled on the requested injunction. If denied, enforcement continues while the case proceeds. If granted, prosecutions under the statute would be paused during litigation.
• Appeals are likely, and the case could move beyond Tennessee given the federal preemption and First Amendment issues at stake.
• Until a final court decision, landlords, churches, nonprofits, and families must weigh legal risk daily with limited guidance.

For residents seeking federal context on anti‑smuggling policy and how federal agencies frame the issue, see the U.S. government’s resource on human smuggling at ICE’s Human Smuggling page. That federal perspective underscores the central tension in Tennessee: federal determinations change over time, while the state statute locks criminal exposure to a single agency’s call at a single moment.

The law remains in force today. Plaintiffs, landlords, churches, and families will watch the docket closely for the next order that will determine whether enforcement pauses or continues while the deeper constitutional fight unfolds. For now, practical questions dominate: what a landlord should ask, what a pastor should accept, what a parent should do when a child needs a safe bed. Those questions carry heavy weight when the wrong answer can mean a felony in Tennessee.