State Government - As introduced, enacts the "Safe Access to Schools and Child Services Act," which prohibits the following entities from conditioning enrollment, attendance, or receipt of services for a child under 18 on the disclosure of the child's immigration status, except as explicitly required by federal or state law or court order: a county, municipality, or branch or agency thereof; public utility, utility district, entity created pursuant to any interlocal agreement, or any other political subdivision thereof; LEA, public school, or public charter school; and state board, commission, committee, department, office, or other unit of state government; clarifies that the prohibition does not limit compliance with federal immigration law or limit cooperation with federal authorities as required by law. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 33; Title 37; Title 49; Title 68 and Title 71.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Jason Powell

Prohibits Tennessee schools and government agencies from requiring children under 18 to disclose immigration status to access enrollment, services, or benefits unless federal/state law explicitly mandates it.

Failed in s/c Departments & Agencies Subcommittee of State & Local Government Committee

#stategovernment

Legislative bill overview

HB 2211 would prohibit Tennessee schools, local government agencies, utilities, and state departments from requiring children under 18 to disclose their immigration status as a condition of enrollment, attendance, or receiving services. The bill explicitly preserves compliance with federal immigration law and cooperation with federal authorities when legally required.

Why is this important

This bill directly affects access to K-12 education and essential services for children regardless of immigration status. The policy intersects education rights, immigration enforcement, and government transparency—issues where federal, state, and local authorities have competing legal obligations.

Potential points of contention

Enforcement ambiguity: The phrase "except as explicitly required by federal or state law" creates potential conflict—unclear which federal/state immigration statutes would override the prohibition or how schools should navigate ambiguous legal requirements

Implementation burden: Schools and agencies would need new procedures to serve children without requesting immigration information, raising questions about data collection practices and verification methods for eligibility programs

Federal cooperation concerns: Opponents may argue the bill hampers immigration enforcement cooperation, while supporters contend it protects constitutional rights to education; the bill's carve-out for legally required cooperation may not fully resolve this tension

Scope of "conditioning": Ambiguity exists around indirect requests (e.g., asking for documentation that reveals status) versus direct inquiries