Bill Lee and Jonathan Skrmetti’s Appellate Brief in Hughes v. Lee Reveals Disdain for Unanimous Trial Court Ruling

On January 6, 2026, Bill Lee and Jonathan Skrmetti, in their respective official capacities, filed their brief with the Tennessee Court of Appeals in their appeal of the unanimous three-judge trial court ruling in Hughes et al. v. Lee, et al. The state’s brief shows the state cannot defend Tennessee’s gun-carry statutes as written.

Rather than engage the unanimous three-judge ruling, the state accuses the trial court panel of “ignoring precedent” (p. 43) and claims the court was “slaying a straw man” (pp. 39, 50). That rhetoric substitutes ridicule for constitutional analysis.

The state’s core argument appears to rely on an imaginary statute where it asserts that Tennessee’s “going armed” statute targets only “offensive” or “terrorizing” conduct (pp. 17–19, 44–52, 54). But Tennessee courts have long held that “intent to go armed” includes defensive readiness, that is the law expressly criminalizes ordinary self-defense carry. In essence, the state asks the appellate court to judge a statute that Tennessee never enacted.

The state’s brief also concedes that prosecutors “should hesitate” before applying the statute to peaceful self-defense carry (p. 13), while still insisting the law is constitutional. But, constitutional rights do not depend on prosecutorial restraint and unconstitutional laws cannot be salvaged by claiming that some prosecutors may refuse to enforce them.

Unable to meet its burden under Supreme Court precedent, the state also cherry-picks history and labels broad public spaces like parks and forests as “sensitive places” (pp. 44–52), a theory that would erase the right to bear arms almost everywhere in at least East Tennessee. Most tellingly, the state admits the guns-in-parks statute is “long overdue for a legislative tune-up” (p. 66). But, courts do not “tune up” unconstitutional laws; they invalidate them as the three-judge panel did.

Bottom line: The state’s own brief confirms the trial court was right. Tennessee’s gun-carry statutes criminalize ordinary self-defense and for that reason the trial court was right.

What can you do and, perhaps more importantly, what must Legislators do to honor their oaths of office?

What Legislators Must Do This Session?

• Repeal the “going armed” statute and thereby remove the unconstitutional criminalization of ordinary self-defense carry.
• Eliminate overbroad location bans that label vast public spaces as “sensitive places” with no historical basis.
• Codify clear, constitutional standards to restrict and prohibit government officials from exercising any authority to stop, detain, question or even arrest citizens for exercising a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

Your Action Matters — Right Now

• Call your State Senator and Representative and demand immediate repeals and reforms of state law. If you do not know who your legislators are you can use the Legislature’s “find my legislator” tool.
• Ask candidates where they stand on repealing unconstitutional carry restrictions. Get specific responses to the “intent to go armed” statute, the parks statute and other statutes that create gun-free zones. It is critical to document these promises in writing and/or with video recordings.
• Tell Legislative Leadership including Speaker Cameron Sexton and Lt. Governor Randy McNally to stop defending broken laws and start fixing them.
• Tell Bill Lee and Jonathan Skrmetti to drop the appeal. Each of them took an oath of office to defend your constitutional rights so why are they openly attacking them.
• Make sure Tennessee’s next governor is someone who has a history of and will commit in writing as a candidate to specific actions that they will take to repeal the intent to go armed law, the parks statute and all other statutes that even minimally impair the rights protected by the Second Amendment. If a candidate cannot affirmatively commit to protect your constitutional rights they are simply unfit for office.

Remember – this is an election year. Legislators and candidates must choose: Defend the Constitution—or defend laws everyone knows are broken.