This story is a partnership between the Nashville Banner and the Nashville Scene. The Nashville Banner is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization focused on civic news. Visit nashvillebanner.com for more information.
A three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could determine the future size of the Metro Council.
In April 2023, a three-judge panel temporarily enjoined a law passed by the Tennessee General Assembly that would cut the size of the Metro Council from 40 seats to 20, writing that Metro was likely to win its lawsuit and that the law could cause “upheaval” in the election process that was underway at the time. In July 2024, the three-judge panel made the injunction permanent, writing that the law was unconstitutional because of the state constitution’s Home Rule amendment, which outlaws legislation that specifically targets one local government.
The state quickly appealed that ruling, and on Wednesday, Judge Steven Stafford, Judge Carma McGee and Judge Kenny Armstrong heard from Metro and the state over the bill.
What Are the Arguments?
Metro Legal associate director Allison Bussell argued on behalf of Metro. She contended that the judges need not delve into the law's constitutionality and can make a ruling that Metro doesn’t have to cut the council in half based on the law's plain language. While section 1(a) of the law imposed a 20-member cap on metropolitan councils, section 1(b) imposed requirements specifically on Metro Nashville on what it had to do to cut the Metro Council in half in time for the 2023 Metro elections.
Three-judge panel rules act mandating city to cut number of members is unconstitutional in 2-1 judgment
“It is undisputed that section 1(b) of the act is no longer enforceable,” Bussell said. “So if section 1(a) does not force Metro Nashville to reduce the size of its council without section 1(b), then there is no live issue for this court to decide, and that's because Metro Nashville, from a procedural perspective, sought a permanent injunction through the summary judgment process of 1(a)’s cap on the size of legislative bodies as implemented through 1(b) of the act. So if those two provisions must be read together to force Metro Nashville to reduce its legislative body size, then there is no live requirement that Metro Nashville do that.”
Bussell argued that if the bill's plain language was not enough for the judges to deny the state's appeal, there are two separate constitutional arguments. The first is the Home Rule argument, which is that while the law as a whole may technically apply to all metros and municipalities in the state, Nashville is the only government that would have to take action to adhere to the law, making it a targeted bill. The second argument is that the law breaches the exemption clause of the state constitution.
Said Bussell: “[Article Seven] Section One says a county legislative body shall not exceed 25 members, and then it says ‘consolidated governments shall be exempt from having a county executive and a county legislative body — as described in this paragraph — shall be exempt’ from having those things, not shall be exempt from having those things, unless the General Assembly decides otherwise.”
Tennessee Solicitor General Philip Hammersley argued on behalf of the state. He said the law applied to all local governments in Tennessee, and Metro’s claim that it shouldn’t apply to Nashville flew in the face of the Home Rule amendment.
Analysis: From drag bans to slashing the Metro Council, this legislative session has seen a slate of bills aimed at Davidson County
“They want to be the one local legislative body in this state that does not have to comply with that 20-member cap,” Hammersley said. “And if you imagine that — imagine that law was passed by the General Assembly, everyone has to comply, except for Metro Nashville — that would be a local legislation problem. So the position that Metro Nashville is advocating here has really turned the local legislation clause upside-down.”
Additionally, Hammersley argued that even if the judges uphold the injunction on the section of the law instructing Nashville on how to cut its council in half, it must reverse the injunction on the 20-member cap.
“The effect of the order is to prevent section 1(a) from applying to Metro Nashville, to Moore County and to Trousdale County,” Hammersley said. “And that matters because even if it is true that this case is moot with respect to Metro Nashville, it's certainly not moot with respect to Moore and Trousdale counties because the law would impose legally binding consequences on them to prevent them from changing their local legislative body size, and that means that the state has a continuing interest in making our merits argument that that decision was incorrect insofar as the injunction applies to Section 1(a).”
What Are the Judges Saying?
The judges were largely silent, only asking each lawyer two questions during their arguments. But an interesting moment came during Hammersley’s rebuttal, when Armstrong questioned whether the state legislature had the constitutional authority to pass this law in the first place.
“So [the constitution] allows a local legislative body to have 25 members,” Armstrong said. “So how do you get around that? Can you do it by the legislature just enacting an act?”
Hammersley responded that the state does not believe a constitutional amendment would be required to impose a cap.
“I mean, the constitutional provision allows — it doesn't prohibit,” Hammersley said. “That is not the same as saying that the General Assembly is forbidden from imposing caps that go below [25].”
Another question came over a piece of case law Bussell cited in her argument. In Leech v. Wayne County, the Court of Appeals ruled that the General Assembly had breached the Home Rule amendment by making a law that affected nearly 90 counties different for two of those counties based on a population bracket. McGee questioned whether that case law was applicable in this situation.
“Wasn’t that statute set up in such a way that it was so narrowly drafted — by very narrow population designation — wasn't it set up in such a way that is different from the way this legislation is set up, because if I understand, there are only three governments in the state of Tennessee choosing to follow a metropolitan form of government at this time, but who's to say it couldn't apply to 100 if they chose to become metropolitan areas?”
Bussell responded that while the situations may differ, the concept is the same because the law was so narrowly tailored that it only affects Nashville.
What’s Next?
The judges did not indicate when a ruling would be published. With the next Metro elections happening in 2027, the judges have time to consider their decision.
This article first appeared on Nashville Banner and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
