Would Tennessee's proposed HB1687 changes to bribery, extortion, riot, and trespass laws survive constitutional challenge?

Plain-English summary

Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 14-44 considered the constitutionality of the original version of House Bill 1687/Senate Bill 1662. The full opinion is not available from the official link, so this page records only the conclusions that the Attorney General's next opinion, 14-45, expressly attributed to 14-44.

According to Opinion 14-45, Opinion 14-44 concluded that Section 2 of the original bill was susceptible to a First Amendment challenge as a content-based restriction on speech. It also concluded that Section 2 could be preempted under Article VI of the United States Constitution. Opinion 14-45 separately stated that Sections 1 and 3 of the original bill did not raise constitutional concerns.

The official 2014 index identifies Opinion 14-44 as an April 7, 2014 opinion concerning amendments to Tennessee's bribery, extortion, riot, and trespass laws. That index links 14-44 to the PDF for Opinion 14-45. Because the 14-44 text cannot be recovered from that link, this page does not attempt to recreate the missing analysis, statutes, cases, or requested-by information.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What did Opinion 14-44 conclude about the extortion provision?

Opinion 14-45 described the earlier conclusion this way:

"Section 2 of HB1687 was susceptible to challenge as a content-based restriction on speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and ... Section 2 could be preempted under Article VI of the United States Constitution."

Source: Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 14-45

Did Opinion 14-44 find the entire bill unconstitutional?

No. Opinion 14-45 states that Opinion 14-44 found no constitutional concern with the original bill's other two principal sections:

"Sections 1 and 3 of HB1687 did not raise constitutional concerns."

Source: Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 14-45

Why is the original 14-44 text missing here?

The official index lists the opinion as:

"Opinion No. 14-44, Constitutionality of Amendments to Bribery, Extortion, Riot, and Trespass Laws, April 7, 2014"

But its link points to op14-045.pdf, which is the April 8, 2014 text of Opinion 14-45. The expected op14-044.pdf address is unavailable. Source: Tennessee's official 2014 opinions index.

Background and source limitation

Opinion 14-45 explains that the original HB1687 used labor-specific language in its proposed extortion provision. The amended bill replaced that language with "any entity," and Opinion 14-45 concluded that the change addressed the content-based-speech problem while leaving a possible federal labor-law preemption issue. Those later statements provide a limited, official account of 14-44's conclusions, but they do not reproduce 14-44's full reasoning.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions/2014-opinions.html
• Later opinion quoting 14-44: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2014/op14-045.pdf

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source. See the linked PDF or landing page above for the complete text.