WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 562

State Government - As introduced, prohibits a person, political subdivision, or public official, in connection with a state emergency, from categorizing or proclaiming by order, rule, or regulation that a lawful occupation is non-essential, or otherwise proclaiming by order, rule, or regulation that a lawful occupation is prohibited from operating based on what the lawful occupation is; specifies that a person harmed by a violation of the prohibition may bring a civil action for actual damages or declaratory relief. - Amends TCA Title 58, Chapter 2.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Monty Fritts

HB 562 prohibits state officials from classifying occupations as non-essential during emergencies, allowing injured parties to sue for damages and restricting executive pandemic/disaster response powers.

Reset on cal. for 4/23/2026
#stategovernment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 562

Legislative bill overview

HB 562 prohibits state officials and political subdivisions from declaring any lawful occupation "non-essential" or banning specific occupations from operating during declared state emergencies. The bill allows individuals harmed by violations to sue for actual damages or seek declaratory relief.

Why is this important

This bill directly addresses concerns arising from COVID-19 lockdowns, when governors and health officials classified certain businesses as non-essential and ordered closures. It would constrain executive emergency powers by preventing categorical occupation bans, potentially affecting how future public health or disaster responses are implemented. The private right of action creates financial liability for officials who violate the restriction.

Potential points of contention

  • Executive emergency flexibility: Critics argue that rigid occupational protections during genuine emergencies (pandemics, disasters) could undermine public health responses and safety measures that require targeted business limitations.
  • Definition and scope: The bill's language around "lawful occupation" doesn't clarify how courts would distinguish between prohibiting a category of work versus targeted safety restrictions (e.g., capacity limits or infection controls).
  • Liability exposure: The civil damages provision may deter officials from issuing emergency orders, potentially creating financial and legal risk that impacts emergency decision-making, or conversely, may result in numerous lawsuits clogging courts.
  • Preemption of local authority: The restriction applies to both state and political subdivisions, potentially limiting cities' and counties' independent emergency response capabilities.

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

Sign in to ask a question.