Criminal Offenses - As introduced, enacts the "Shielding Tennesseans from Oligarchic Power and Eliminating Lawless Obstruction of Necessities Act (STOP ELON Act)," which creates a new offense of interfering with an individual's or entity's receipt of a loan, grant, or financial assistance that the individual or entity is lawfully entitled to receive from the federal, state, or local government, with intent to deprive the individual of the loan, grant, or financial assistance, which is punished as theft; authorizes a victim of an offense to bring a civil action to recover the funds that the victim did not receive because of the offense. - Amends TCA Title 29 and Title 39.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Jeff Yarbro

Tennessee bill criminalizes intentional interference with citizens' lawful access to government loans/grants/assistance, punishing as theft with civil recovery options available.

Action deferred in Senate Judiciary Committee to 1st Calendar of 2026

#criminaloffenses

Legislative bill overview

SB 1128 creates a new criminal offense in Tennessee for intentionally interfering with someone's receipt of federal, state, or local government loans, grants, or financial assistance they are legally entitled to receive. The offense would be classified as theft, and victims could pursue civil action to recover lost funds.

Why is this important

This bill addresses situations where individuals or entities—potentially including government officials, private parties, or organizations—could maliciously block or obstruct citizens' access to legitimate government benefits. The civil remedy provision provides victims a direct path to financial recovery beyond criminal prosecution.

Potential points of contention

Vague scope of "interfering": The bill doesn't clearly define what actions constitute "interfering," which could lead to overly broad prosecutions or selective enforcement depending on interpretation of indirect vs. direct obstruction

Dual liability concerns: Creating both criminal penalties (as theft) and civil liability for the same conduct raises questions about proportionality and whether this adequately distinguishes between minor interference and serious deprivation

Bill's apparent targeting: The act's name references a specific public figure, suggesting it may be narrowly tailored to address a particular situation rather than establishing general principle, which raises concerns about whether it's politically motivated legislation