When Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed SB 392 into law in May 2025, it criminalized the act of concealing, harboring, or shielding undocumented immigrants for financial gain. In fact, it labeled these actions as human trafficking, a felony charge. The law is meant to go into effect on 1 July; however, a lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional.
The Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church—a group of church officials based in Tennessee—is challenging this law, having filed a suit against the state’s district attorneys general. Joined by a Nashville landlord who shares a home with his son-in-law, an unidentified Mexican immigrant seeking asylum, the plaintiffs claim that the law is overly broad and vague, that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and that the new law endangers religious services, landlords, schools, emergency services, and more.
The class action suit—which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, the American Immigration Council, and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition—is asking for the court to block enforcement of the law while the case is heard.
Bill Sponsors’ Response
In an interview with the The Washington Post, State Sen. Brent Taylor (R) and State Rep. Chris Todd (R), the legislative sponsors of SB 392, said that the law is not intended for prosecuting religious groups or landlords. Instead, it is aimed at stopping human trafficking by criminalizing harboring or sheltering an undocumented immigrant for financial gain, Todd said.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The suit claims that by allowing the Tennessee state government to regulate immigration, the law violates the U.S. Constitution because that power is reserved for the federal government.
The plaintiffs also claim that the law infringes upon churches’ First Amendment rights. “The Synod and its churches, pastors, staff, and congregations provide a number of ministries, including shelter, to people regardless of their immigration status, and they do so as an expression of their faith,” the suit said. With the broad use of the term “shelter” in the law, it would criminalize a church’s right to religious exercise and association, the plaintiffs argue.
The suit also points to the overall vague language of the law. “The bill exempts lawyers and health care providers who aid immigrants, but defines ‘harbor’ as ‘providing shelter’ and does not define shelter,” The Washington Post reported.
Attorneys argue that this could leave churches vulnerable to prosecution for operating day shelter services, soup kitchens, or English as a second language classes. They also allege it could pose legal threats to landlords or families that include tenants with mixed immigration statuses. The suit claims that the bill’s language would “criminalize a broad range of innocuous everyday activities that involve providing shelter to immigrants.”
The lawsuit notes that while lawmakers claim that the law would only target people or groups harboring immigrants for “financial gain,” churches may receive grants or donations for the shelter services they provide, which could make them subject to prosecution under the law. (Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, et al. v. Steven Finney, et al., U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, No. 25-cv-00684, 2025)
