A three-judge panel sided with Nashville in the ongoing battle over the city’s sports authority, according to a ruling issued Friday morning. Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed legislation aiming to allow the governor and the speakers of the House and Senate to make appointments to the board, which the court declared unconstitutional in its unanimous opinion. Unlike legislation related to the airport authority, for which state leaders sought a majority of appointments, the sports authority legislation gives state leaders fewer than half of the seats.
Republicans initially pushed for greater control of the Metro Sports Authority after passing a $500 million subsidy to support a new Titans stadium, referenced in the judges’ decision with direct quotes from state Rep. Ryan Williams and state Sen. Paul Bailey. The judges said that such a directed law violates the Home Rule protections, which prevent the state from making laws that target a specific municipality, and protections against so-called “ripper bills,” meant to remove officials from public office. The judges also agreed that the attempted takeover violates Nashville's Guarantee of Equal Protection, codified in the Tennessee Constitution.
New state laws aren’t passing constitutional muster
The injunction marks yet another court victory for Nashville against attempts at state overreach this year. Nashville has scored injunctions against state attempts to land a NASCAR deal, usurp city control over the Nashville airport and now vacate and reconstitute the city’s sports authority. The Metro Sports Authority is the city’s go-between for professional teams like the Titans, Nashville SC and the Nashville Predators, and their facilities, like Bridgestone Arena and Nissan Stadium.
“Four different three-judge panels — with judges from across Tennessee — have all ruled unanimously that the legislature violated the Tennessee Constitution four different times when it passed legislation that targeted only Metropolitan Nashville,” says Metro legal director Wally Dietz in a statement. “We do not enjoy suing the State. But we remain ready to protect the rights of Metropolitan Nashville and the people who live here in the hope that 2024 results in an improved relationship between the State and Metro Nashville.”
Friday’s ruling quoted the October injunction issued by a different three-judge panel against the state’s airport takeover, a decision that was recently appealed by the state. Both cases hinge on the legal principle that boards created by the city (and staffed with its appointees) are arms of the city government rather than independent entities. Both panels decided that these authorities are arms of the city and therefore protected by its constitutional Home Rule protections. The judges’ decision to reference the airport case, which is still being litigated, shows that judges have been overwhelmingly sympathetic to Metro’s legal arguments. Taken together, Metro’s simultaneous legal suits have strengthened each other by creating case law that legally cements the boundaries between what the state can and can’t do.
"I would say right now I'm cautiously optimistic that in the upcoming session we can get to something that feels a little more like an equilibrium and a little less like an adversarial scenario," Mayor Freddie O'Connell told reporters shortly after the ruling. The fraught city-state relationship was a central issue in this summer's mayoral race. "These are large local assets that frequently have bonds issued in the names of Metro taxpayers, so I think it's totally appropriate that we defend our right to appoint them."
State Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has a 30-day window in which he can appeal Friday’s ruling.
