Stephen Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., W2025-01327-COA-R3-CV (case link) is the constitutional challenge brought by three TFA members, together with Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, against two Tennessee statutes that have long burdened the right to keep and bear arms.
The challenged statutes are Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), commonly known as Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), commonly known as the “Parks” statute. Plaintiffs contend that these statutes infringed rights protected by Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment by treating constitutionally protected carry as criminal conduct unless a person could later fit within an exception or defense. However, those exceptions/defenses were only relevant at trial – an arresting officer could ignore them. Those exceptions actually included fact patterns such as “I am in my own home,” “I have a handgun permit,” or, even, “Hey, I am a TN Supreme Court Judge.” Because of this legislatively invented scheme, an officer can stop, detain, search, question, issue a citation to or even arrest a citizen for carrying in their own home or with a state issued permit.
Hughes is a civil action challenging the constitutionality of this legislatively fabricated statutory scheme. Under Tennessee law, qualifying civil actions challenging the constitutionality of a statute must be assigned to a three-judge trial court panel. The case was filed in Gibson County Chancery Court. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the complaint, determined that the case was subject to the three-judge-panel statute, and appointed two additional trial judges to hear the case with the Gibson County Chancellor.
In August 2025, the three-judge panel ruled for the plaintiffs. The panel applied the test required by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and held that the regulated conduct fell within the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. The panel further held that the State defendants failed to carry their burden to demonstrate a national historical tradition justifying the challenged restrictions. The panel declared Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-1307(a) and 39-17-1311(a) unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.
Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, in their official capacities, appealed. On appeal, the State defendants argued principally that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief, that the trial court applied the wrong facial-challenge standard, and that the panel’s declaration improperly affected government officials and Tennesseans who were not parties to the case.
A significant feature of the appeal is that the State acknowledged constitutional defects in Tennessee’s current firearms regulatory system. In its opening brief, the State wrote that “some applications of Tennessee’s regulatory system are constitutionally problematic,” and gave as an example that law enforcement and courts “should hesitate to apply the Going Armed Statute to criminalize the carrying of a rifle on a country road for self-defense.” App.Br. 13. The State also described the case as involving “the shortcomings of Tennessee’s firearms laws” revealed by Bruen and argued that correcting those shortcomings “is a question for the legislature, and not the courts.” App.Br. 14–15.
The State’s position was that even if the statutes are unconstitutional in many ordinary applications, they should survive a facial challenge because, in the State’s view, they might still be constitutional in some applications. The State pointed to examples such as grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, offensive carrying to terrorize the public, non-permit holders in parks, and other public-safety hypotheticals. App.Br. 13, 26, 44–46.
Further, the State openly argued that given the constitutional problems with the statutes that the court should nonetheless reverse the trial court’s ruling. The State argued that how to deal with admittedly unconstitutional statutes is an issue that the court should leave in the hands of the Tennessee Legislature (of course, that is the entity that created the problems and which has for more than 200 years failed in repeated opportunities to enacted legislation to eliminate the constitutional infringements).
The plaintiffs’ response was direct. They argued that the State was trying to preserve an unconstitutional regime by relying on fringe hypotheticals rather than addressing what the statutes actually do to ordinary, law-abiding Tennesseans. Appellees’ Br. 4, 14, 34–36. The appellees emphasized that the statutes criminalize peaceable, constitutionally protected carry by ordinary citizens and that the State could not avoid Bruen’s historical burden by pointing to weapons or scenarios that other laws already address. Appellees’ Br. 34–36, 44–47.
On the facial-challenge issue, appellees argued that the State misstated the applicable standard. They explained that facial challenges do not automatically fail whenever a defendant can imagine one constitutional application. Instead, appellees argued that courts may consider whether a statute lacks a “plainly legitimate sweep,” including in constitutional contexts outside the First Amendment. Appellees’ Br. 38–41. They further argued that the State’s approach would make facial Second Amendment challenges practically impossible, because even a sweeping firearms ban could be defended by pointing to some unprotected or independently regulated circumstance – such as carrying a missile with the intent to go armed. Appellees’ Br. 41–44.
On the State’s “dangerous and unusual weapons” argument, appellees responded that the challenged statute is a firearm regulation and therefore triggers Bruen. They argued that the State cannot “shirk” its historical burden simply by pointing to “grenades and bombs.” Appellees’ Br. 45–47. The point, appellees argued, is not whether Tennessee may regulate grenades or bombs under some other valid law; the point is whether the State may maintain a broad criminal statute that burdens the right to bear arms generally and then force citizens to rely on exceptions and defenses after the fact.
On the Parks statute, appellees argued that Bruen does not permit the State to designate broad categories of public spaces as “sensitive places” merely because people, including children, may be present there. Appellees’ Br. 61–68. Appellees argued that public parks are not analogous to historically recognized sensitive places such as legislative assemblies, polling places, courthouses, schools, or government buildings, and that treating ordinary public areas as sensitive places would erode the general right to public carry.
On jurisdiction, appellees argued that the three-judge panel had authority to decide the constitutional challenge and to issue declaratory relief. They distinguished the State’s authorities as cases involving injunctions against criminal prosecutions, criminal judgments, criminal court rules, or other procedural settings not comparable to a facial civil challenge to a state statute. Appellees’ Br. 15–31. Appellees also emphasized that the Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the pleadings and appointed the three-judge panel to decide the case. Appellees’ Br. 14.
On remedy, appellees rejected the State’s claim that the panel issued impermissible “universal relief.” Appellees argued that the panel granted relief to the plaintiffs by declaring the challenged statutes facially invalid, and that any benefit to other Tennesseans is an unavoidable incident of complete relief when a statute is declared unconstitutional on its face. Appellees’ Br. 69–75. Appellees further argued that Tennessee law does not require a class action before a court may declare a statute facially unconstitutional. Appellees’ Br. 74–75.
On June 23, 2026, the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the appeal. The oral argument video is available on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnhWbmkSCY8
A ruling from the Court of Appeals is expected to take time and may take approximately six months, although the Court is not bound by that estimate. TFA will continue to monitor the appeal and will provide supporters with further updates when the Court issues its decision.
TFA’s position remains that constitutionally protected rights are not privileges dispensed by the legislature. The Tennessee Constitution and the Second Amendment protect the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. When the legislature exceeds constitutional limits, courts have both the authority and the duty to say so.
The fight against our own state when State officials violate their constitutional constraints is a burden that, like freedom and liberty, falls squarely on the shoulders of the citizens. The State uses our tax dollars to fund the Legislature which creates the constitutional violations. The State uses our tax dollars to pay the Attorney General to defend unconstitutional statutes. To bring these actions and appeals against the State, requires people to volunteer as plaintiffs, attorneys to bring the actions and funding to help cover litigation expenses and fees. You can help by supporting TFA as a member and, more importantly, helping the Tennessee Firearms Foundation (a charity) raise funds that can be used for public interest litigation.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.