Constitutionality

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Opinions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Tennessee Department of Education, No. M2020-00683-SC-R11-CV, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. May 18, 2022).

[R]eview of Plaintiffs’ claim requires consideration of the constitutionality of the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment. It, therefore, entails both constitutional and statutory construction. Issues of constitutionality and of constitutional and statutory construction are all questions of law, which the Court reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness. Willeford v. Klepper, 597 S.W.3d 454, 464 (Tenn. 2020).

Fisher v. Hargett, No. M2020-00831-SC-RDM-CV, 604 S.W.3d 381, 396 (Tenn. 2020).

“When analyzing the constitutionality of a statute, we review the issue de novo with no presumption of correctness to the lower court’s legal conclusions.” Tenn. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 514 S.W.3d at 712 (citing Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009)).

Willeford v. Klepper, No. M2016-01491-SC-R11-CV, 597 S.W.3d 454 (Tenn. 2020).

Because issues of constitutionality and statutory construction are questions of law, we review them de novo with no presumption of correctness accorded to the legal conclusions of the courts below. See Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Walls, 62 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Tenn. 2001).

Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Halliburton v Tennessee Board of Parole, No. M2020-01657-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 802618 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2022).

When reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, we must indulge every presumption and resolve every doubt in favor of the constitutionality of that statute. Vogel v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., 937 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Tenn. 1996); Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768, 775 (Tenn. 1995). Our Supreme Court has stated that when bringing a facial challenge to the validity of a statute, “the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute, as written, would be valid.” Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009) (citations omitted).