The Tennessee Department of Health has reached a negotiated agreement to pause a policy that would report the names of children without legal immigration status to state enforcement officials. The agreement, filed Tuesday in Davidson County Chancery Court, allows approximately 400 immigrant children to remain enrolled in Children’s Special Services (CSS) while a legal challenge against the reporting requirement proceeds.
The dispute stems from a Tennessee law enacted last year that requires the reporting of individuals without legal status who receive public benefits. In early June, Health Department Interim Commissioner John Dunn notified 400 families that their children’s information would be shared with the Tennessee Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division as a condition of receiving continued care. This division was created by state lawmakers to coordinate data sharing with federal immigration authorities.
Three physicians filed a lawsuit on June 24 to block the policy, arguing that state officials were misinterpreting the law and violating federal funding rules. Chancery Court Judge Patricia Head Moskal initially issued a temporary restraining order on the day the suit was filed. The new agreement extends this pause indefinitely while the plaintiffs pursue administrative remedies within the Department of Health to seek a permanent end to the reporting practice.
The order requires the Tennessee Department of Health to take specific corrective actions. The state must re-enroll any child who was withdrawn from the program due to the reporting policy and is directed to disregard any withdrawal requests made by families motivated by fear of immigration enforcement. Additionally, the department must send letters to affected families, notify healthcare providers of the change, and post the court order on the official CSS webpage.
The legal proceedings will determine whether state reporting mandates for public benefits can be applied to specialized medical programs that receive federal underwriting. While the reporting is paused for the foreseeable future, the final outcome depends on the results of the ongoing administrative procedures and court litigation. No specific date for a final ruling or the expiration of the stay was reported, though the legal challenge remains active in the court system.