Bill strips courts of jurisdiction over internal TN legislative issues
A Tennessee lawmaker wants to block state courts from hearing challenges to any internal rule or regulation adopted by the General Assembly after a Davidson County judge last year temporarily blocked the House from enforcing a ban on protest signs in committee meetings.
Rep. Gino Bulso, R-brentwood, filed House Bill 1652 after he felt the judge “interfered” with House authority when blocking the rule, which was challenged after members of the public were ejected from an August public committee hearing.
Bulso’s bill would not apply to laws passed by the legislature, which are routinely challenged in state court.
The Republican lawmaker said the Tennessee Supreme Court would retain jurisdiction under the bill, though the bill currently states “no circuit, chancery, or other court of this state has subject matter jurisdiction over any legal action, challenging any rule, regulation, or procedure of the senate or house of representatives.”
HB 1652 doesn’t currently have a Senate sponsor.
Bulso hopes to codify his interpretation of legislative autonomy outlined in the Tennesee Constitution, which has long allowed the General Assembly to establish and enact its own internal rules and procedures. Under Bulso’s interpretation,
state lower courts should not be allowed to weigh in on internal House proceedings. The Tennessee Supreme Court and federal courts have broader appellate authority and should handle any public challenges, Bulso said.
“No trial court judge anywhere in the state has the power to interfere with the rules that the House adopts,” Bulso, a practicing attorney, said. “If there’s some claim that there’s a violation of the First Amendment, that should go directly to the federal district court.”
Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-nashville, disagrees with Bulso’s interpretation: “There’s just no legal basis for that conclusion.”
Yarbro said courts are “rightly deferential” to the General Assembly and won’t interfere in many cases regarding internal House policies, but “those still have to comply with the constitutional authority of the legislature.”
“Historically, legislatures strip courts of their jurisdictions when they want to get away with something,” said Yarbro, also practicing attorney. “It’s pretty easy to avoid going to court by passing constitutional rules that meet legal muster. All 50 states have legislatures with rules and have had those for a couple of centuries now without having to resort to this type of extreme.”
Akram Faizer, professor of law at Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law, said Monday the state constitution already allows the General Assembly to internally determine its rules and procedures. Still, legislative proceedings can’t “transgress on broader public rights,” such as the First Amendment speech rights.
House Republicans last August for the special legislative session passed new, controversial rules that banned signs from the chamber’s galleries and committee rooms. The ACLU of Tennessee sued after a group of women were removed by state troopers from a heated committee hearing for holding signs, arguing the rule violated the First Amendment.
Davidson County Chancellor Anne Martin issed a temporary restrainig order in the case, blocking the House from enforcing its rule. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed after the August special session ended, as the House would have to re-adopt the rule for the regular session.
The House Rules Committee on Monday declined to do so.
Reach Melissa Brown mabrown@tennessean.com.