Preemption in Immigration and Law Enforcement Are on the Ballot in Tennessee

This fall, we sent out a community survey to ask what issues mattered most to you in this election cycle. This is the second in our community-focused series.

People want to know who enforces the law in their communities, and rapid policy changes involving criminal law enforcement and immigration enforcement at the local, state and federal levels have blurred that line in recent years. 

When the Banner surveyed voters about the issues most important to them this fall, preemption and law enforcement ranked among them. 

But it’s not just the voters. Politicians up and down the ballot have centered on issues like the state’s involvement in immigration enforcement and the multi-agency Memphis Safe Task Force throughout campaigns this year. 

On Saturday, President Donald Trump came to Tennessee for the second time in a month, campaigning alongside Republican candidates as a “reward” for the red state voting for him three times. 

His remarks hit all of the usual national talking points but also drove home his approval of Tennessee’s increasingly punitive immigration enforcement policies, which were written in conjunction with his administration, and the Memphis Safe Task Force, which has combined state and local resources to target crime and immigration in the city for more than a year. 

“Memphis, Tennessee, now is talked about all over the country, maybe beyond, because the results are so incredible,” Trump said.

The issue is also being discussed in state-level races, where candidates are deeply divided over who should have what enforcement authority. 

In the governor’s race, the question is whether whoever is elected to replace outgoing Gov. Bill Lee will continue to use the National Guard for local law enforcement in Memphis and how they would direct the Tennessee Highway Patrol to participate in federal immigration enforcement.

Since the governor has authority over the National Guard and THP, the question becomes which candidates would use state resources to help with the Trump Administration’s public safety policies and which would reverse course

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Republican nominee for governor and a staunch Trump ally, has touted the Memphis Task Force as a major success for the state and Republican Party and, at the rally on Saturday, boasted having worked with Trump to secure the border, increase deportations and implement the task force.

Since the primary, Blackburn has credited her close relationship with FBI Director Kash Patel for helping broker the start of the task force.

Naturally, Blackburn indicated in her questionnaire that she would even consider deploying the guard “in other initiatives that would improve our state in the same way that their presence has made Memphis safer,” calling the task force’s results “remarkable.”

Memphis City Councilmember Jerri Green, the Democratic nominee up against Blackburn, has denounced the task force for not aligning with the Constitution,“which is strictly against using our military to police our own citizens.”

Moreover, she criticized the enforcement as a use of National Guard resources.

“The National Guard’s role is responding to natural disasters, not patrolling local neighborhoods or enforcing immigration law,” Green wrote. “I led the fight in Memphis to block deploying the Guard to our streets because public safety comes from opportunity, not military occupation.”

In an interview with the Banner last month, Green said stopping preemption of the state and of localities would be a central focus if she were elected.

Independent candidate David Hatley, who leans conservative and is polling in third place, hasn’t shared many specific policies but asserts on his website that he supports the state’s involvement in removing people who are “here illegally and commit violent crimes.” Independent Lauren Pinkson, who is polling behind Hatley, says she supports “lawful immigration enforcement partnerships to go after traffickers and drug smugglers” but doesn’t think THP should be involved in 287(g) and has constitutional concerns about federal enforcement. 

State legislators have passed policies over the last two years preempting local law enforcement and even civilian government employees, requiring cooperation with federal agencies around immigration, threatening funding and even criminal penalties for noncompliance. 

While individual agencies previously could join 287(g) at will — and only two in Tennessee were participating as Trump started his second term — state lawmakers first incentivized local agencies to participate in 2025, then required participation this year. 

Now, state-level candidates are debating whether and to what extent the state should force participation. 

In one of the closest races in the state, retired THP Captain Mark Proctor is running to represent District 59 in the House, arguing that the state needs to stay out of immigration enforcement to allow troopers to focus on public safety,

“As a former Tennessee Highway Patrol leader, I know our limited law enforcement resources should remain focused on preventing crime, responding to emergencies, and addressing the issues that pose the greatest threat to public safety while respecting human dignity, transparency, and the rule of law,” Proctor wrote in a Banner questionnaire this summer, noting his concern about law enforcement conduct during ICE raids in the state.

Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville), who is running for reelection in District 55, said in his questionnaire that he’d like to “see less state control in almost every area,” specifically urging the state to stay out of immigration. 

“Immigration is a federal issue and remains a civil matter on the federal level. The federal government and Tennessee’s elected officials in Washington, DC should do their job to fix our country’s broken immigration system,” Clemmons wrote. “The state and state officials should not be expected to do the federal government’s job for it.”

Proctor’s opponent, Bill Hancock, did not complete the questionnaire and does not list immigration as a priority on his website but does believe in “cracking down on criminals and protecting our local neighborhoods.” 

Jayla Thomas, a Republican challenging Clemmons, argued in her questionnaire that the state should play some role but must stay within constitutional limits. 

“Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, but states have a legitimate role in cooperating with federal authorities where authorized by law, particularly when it comes to public safety and individuals who have committed crimes,” Thomas wrote, later adding that “our state should focus its resources on keeping communities safe, not expanding government authority beyond what the law permits.” 

In District 52, where Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) is seeking reelection, his Republican challenger, Michelle Vetter, argued in her questionnaire that the state should not only preempt local law enforcement but also preempt federal enforcement agencies.

“The State should comply with federal law and develop cooperation between all law enforcement agencies,” Vetter wrote. “Working together benefits everyone, keeps both citizens and LEOs safer, reduces cost, and fights back more effectively against crime and criminals who pose a danger to all.”

Vetter encouraged “more” state participation in 287(g), adding, “The more agencies get involved and work together, the quicker, safer, and more efficient enforcement will become.”

Jones, who did not fill out the questionnaire, has been a vocal opponent of the state’s involvement in immigration, the Memphis task force and preemption of local governments.

The post Preemption in Immigration and Law Enforcement Are on the Ballot in Tennessee appeared first on Nashville Banner.