Tennessee Driver's License Work Permit Rule Halted

A Nashville judge has halted the Tennessee driver’s license work permit rule, ordering the state to stop turning away immigrants whose federal work permits it had refused to accept. Chancellor Russell Perkins of the Davidson County Chancery Court signed a temporary restraining order on Nov. 2 that bars the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security from demanding a visa and Form I-94 as the only proof of lawful presence for a temporary license, a copy of the order published by the Tennessee Lookout shows. For DACA recipients, Temporary Protected Status holders, asylum applicants and others who carry an employment authorization card but no visa, the counter is open again, at least until a Nov. 14 hearing.

The order directs the department to accept a valid Form I-766 employment authorization document, and other federal documents, as proof of authorized presence so they can be checked through the federal SAVE verification system and used to issue temporary licenses under Tenn. Code Ann. 55-50-331(g)(1). It does not take effect until the plaintiffs post a bond. The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, which brought the case with six individual plaintiffs, said it planned to post the bond on Nov. 3, WSMV reported.

A fight over process, not federal status

The dispute had been building at renewal desks for weeks. As earlier coverage of the DACA license denials showed, people who had held Tennessee licenses for years were being refused when they came in to renew. Gov. Bill Lee said on Oct. 28 that he had only just learned of the change and was weighing “what impact it actually does have and are there changes we need to make,” the Lookout reported (see the report on the governor’s review). The coalition sued in chancery court at the end of October.

The lawsuit is built mostly on Tennessee administrative law. According to the Lookout and the Tennessee Tribune, the plaintiffs argue the department exceeded its authority and changed its document rules without the public notice state law requires. The complaint also alleges the department stopped running these applicants through SAVE, an allegation the state has not addressed publicly.

The state’s position is that the statute, revised in 2025, requires documents establishing a specific period of lawful status, and that a work permit does not. A department spokesperson made that argument to the Lookout, which noted that neither the original law nor the 2025 version lists the documents that qualify.

What the restraining order does and does not settle

A temporary restraining order is not a ruling on the merits. Perkins applied the factors the Tennessee Supreme Court set out in Fisher v. Hargett (2020), including the threat of irreparable harm and the public interest, and found they favored keeping the old practice in place for now. The order describes its purpose as preserving the status quo until the court can hear arguments on a temporary injunction.

Three practical points follow from the wording. First, the order ties the work permit to SAVE verification, so it does not promise a license on sight. Clerks can still confirm status case by case, which the coalition says was the department’s practice for many years. Second, the order is written against the department and its agents and refers to applicants generally, not only the named plaintiffs, though the court has not said so expressly. Third, a win built on procedure can be temporary. If the court ultimately finds the department skipped required steps, the department could try to adopt the same restriction again through formal rulemaking, and the real question of what counts as an “authorized stay” would return.

That question is hardest for asylum applicants. A work permit carries a category code under 8 CFR 274a.12 and validity dates, but a pending asylum case has no fixed end, so a future rule could draw lines by category.

For employers, nothing changes on the Form I-9. An unexpired employment authorization card is a List A document on its own. The pressure on workers comes from timing, with automatic EAD extensions ended by final rule and DACA renewals running months behind. A worker whose card lapses can lose the license and the job at once, whatever this case decides.

Dates and decisions ahead

Bond: the order applies only after the plaintiffs post it, which the coalition said would happen Nov. 3.
Nov. 14: the first hearing, on whether to replace the restraining order with a temporary injunction, according to the Lookout.
Counter guidance: whether driver services centers are told how to apply the order.
Governor and legislature: Lee’s review could produce an administrative fix, and lawmakers could define acceptable documents when the General Assembly returns in January.

No official count of refusals exists. The Lookout reported that hundreds have been denied and thousands of work permit holders are at risk, figures the state has not confirmed.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts