On September 30, 2025, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a “stay” of the three-judge trial court’s ruling in Hughes et al. v. Lee et al which ruling declared two of Tennessee’s gun control statutes unconstitutional. Although the trial court ruling declared these two statutes unconstitutional, it did not issue an injunction which would have prohibited the state or local officials from continuing to enforce the statutes. What does the Court of Appeals stay mean?

The stay likely means that the State of Tennessee and local government officials can continue to enforce these two statutes without risking a contempt ruling by the three-judge panel. But, of course, that was already the case since the trial court had not issued an injunction.

But, there is a more complex problem that now faces law enforcement and district attorneys in Tennessee. First, the Court of Appeals stay does not necessarily impact whether individuals can successfully bring a federal civil rights action against state or local officials who do seek to enforce the statutes. Certainly, such Federal Civil Rights claims could have been brought even before the ruling in Hughes. But now the issue is complicated – for government officials.

A potential problem arises from the judicial admission by the Attorney General in his pleadings in the Hughes action that these statutes apparently have been already enforced in Tennessee in ways that appear to be unconstitutional. If that is true, and we would assume it is, then the State has potentially exposed state and local officials to federal civil rights claims with or without the stay and such exposure may now be more significant in light of the judicial admission.

When the state moved the three-judge trial court to grant it a stay – which that court refused to do – the state asserted in its motion that the statutes already may have been unconstitutionally applied (Motion for Stay, p. 5 – “Defendants have acknowledged that there are unconstitutional applications of these statutes. Ds’ MSJ, at 16.”)   Although the state did not specify in its motion what those unconstitutional enforcement actions have been or might be aside from a reference that restrictions on “individuals carrying handguns for self-defense raises constitutional concerns,” (State’s Memorandum of Law, SJ, p. 16), the examples that the state gave of allegedly constitutional applications included issues such as individuals who carry hand grenades or individuals with felony convictions.  Whether the state is wrong regarding its assertions that those who carry hand grenades or felons (perhaps non-violent felons) who carry handguns for self-defense, the state has clearly conceded that there are other instances where these statutes cannot be safely constitutionally enforced.

In light of the state admitting that at least some applications of these laws might be unconstitutional, the state has potentially exposed law enforcement and district attorneys in the state to claims for federal civil rights violations if they have or should they continue to enforce these laws at least in instances where the scope of the Second Amendment’s constitutional protections are clear.

This situation merely increases the pressure that responsible legislators should feel to immediately repeal these two statutes and to explore what constitutionally permissible public policy choices, if any, should be considered as replacements. Indeed, because of the spectrum of other existing criminal statutes prohibiting assaults, murders, etc., it is likely that no other statutes regulating the rights protected by the Second Amendment need to be enacted at all.

If you believe that you have personally been victimized by government attempts to enforce either or both of these statutes that are the subject of the Hughes litigation, you may consider reviewing your circumstances with an attorney to see if your federally protected rights have been violated.