WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1772

Education, Higher - As introduced, prohibits imposing liability against a higher education institution for negligence in admitting, enrolling, or extending housing opportunities to a person who has been previously convicted of a criminal offense based solely upon the previous criminal conviction; prohibits use of the person's prior criminal record as evidence in a cause of action against a higher education institution for negligence in admitting, enrolling, or extending housing opportunities to the person. - Amends TCA Title 9; Title 28; Title 29; Title 40 and Title 49.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Kevin Raper

Tennessee bill shields colleges from negligence liability for admitting/housing applicants with prior criminal convictions and bars using criminal records as evidence in related lawsuits.

H. Placed on Consent Calendar for 2/23/2026
#education #higher
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1772

Legislative bill overview

HB 1772 prohibits Tennessee higher education institutions from being held liable for negligence in admissions, enrollment, or housing decisions based solely on an applicant's prior criminal conviction. The bill also prevents prior criminal records from being used as evidence in negligence lawsuits against colleges regarding these decisions.

Why is this important

This legislation directly affects how colleges can use criminal history in admission and housing decisions, potentially expanding access to higher education for people with criminal records while simultaneously limiting institutional liability exposure. The bill reflects broader policy debates about criminal justice reform, second chances, and balancing institutional risk management with equity concerns.

Potential points of contention

  • Liability shield concerns: Critics may argue the bill inappropriately protects institutions from accountability when they knowingly admit individuals with violent or serious criminal histories without adequate safeguards, potentially putting other students at risk.
  • Evidence exclusion implications: Preventing use of criminal records as evidence could complicate negligence cases where prior criminal behavior is directly relevant to predicting future harm or institutional negligence.
  • Disparate application: The bill may create tension between anti-discrimination goals and institutional autonomy, as colleges could still consider criminal history through indirect means while officially being barred from using it as direct evidence.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.