Tennessee House Bill HB2746

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Refer: 2/5/24
• Failed: 2/27/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 6, Part 4 and Title 16, relative to the attorney general and reporter.

Impact

If enacted, HB2746 would require a notable change in the procedure followed by the attorney general's office. Under current law, the issuance of civil investigative demands can be done without prior judicial consent, leading to potential concerns about overreach or misuse of power. The bill's impact will enhance accountability by necessitating that judicial review precedes such demands, which could also bolster the safeguards for individuals or entities subjected to these inquiries. The formalization of approval through standardized forms and certification of necessity could streamline processes while ensuring adherence to constitutional or statutory duties.

Summary

House Bill 2746 proposes amendments to the Tennessee Code, particularly concerning the operations of the attorney general and reporter in relation to civil investigative demands. The bill mandates that prior to issuing any civil investigative demand, the attorney general must obtain judicial approval from either a chancery court judge in Davidson County or one in the county where the demand will be executed. This approval requirement is aimed at establishing a higher level of oversight over the attorney general's powers, ensuring that their actions are justified and regulated by judicial standards.

Contention

The central debate surrounding HB2746 hinges on the balance between enforcing the law effectively and protecting individual rights. Proponents argue that the requirement for judicial approval enhances the checks and balances within the state's legal framework, allowing for greater scrutiny of the attorney general's actions. Critics, however, might view this as an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that could slow down investigations and impact the ability of the attorney general to act promptly in matters where swift action is crucial. This contention reflects a broader discussion about the role of the attorney general and the extent of their powers in Tennessee's legal landscape.