A federal judge in Nashville has denied a request to immediately block Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers from conducting traffic stops alongside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, though she let a related discrimination claim move forward in the underlying lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled Wednesday that the Tennessee Immigrant & RefugeeA person outside their country of nationality who cannot return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion (INA 101(a)(42)). Admission as a refugee is discretionary, and annual admission levels are set through a Presidential Determination. A person already in the United States or at a port of entry with a similar claim may instead seek asylum.See it in the glossary Rights Coalition had not made a “clear showing” it was entitled to a Preliminary injunctionA temporary court order pausing enforcement of a rule or policy while a legal case is still being decided.See it in the glossary, according to a report on the ruling. The coalition, joined by seven Tennessee residents, sued the Tennessee Highway Patrol and its parent agency in May, arguing that troopers were stopping motorists based on their ethnic or racial appearance and then letting ICE agents riding along, or stationed nearby, demand immigration papers and detain drivers.
What the judge ruled
On the Fourth Amendment claim, Trauger was skeptical even assuming the coalition’s allegations were true. She wrote that a pretextual traffic stop backed by probable cause of a violation does not itself breach the Constitution, regardless of an officer’s underlying motive, citing settled Supreme Court precedent. She gave more weight to the coalition’s separate 14th Amendment discrimination claim, finding the evidence so far, “though not robust,” was enough to show some likelihood of success. She also rejected the state’s argument that the coalition lacked standing to sue on its members’ behalf.
Why Memphis is the focus
Trauger noted that most of the evidence submitted centers on a weeklong 2025 operation in Nashville that has since ended, and said she needs more evidence of ongoing violations specific to Memphis, where THP now works alongside ICE as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, a joint federal-state operation created last September by Executive orderA directive from the President to federal agencies and officials about how to run the executive branch and carry out the law. Executive orders are numbered and published in the Federal Register, and they generally bind the executive branch.See it in the glossary. Through that task force, THP has conducted tens of thousands of traffic stops in Memphis, though neither agency has released data on how many led to immigration arrests. That pattern of state and local agencies teaming up with federal immigration authorities is playing out well beyond Tennessee, as seen in the IRS data-sharing case and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on asylum seeker detention, both of which test how far federal enforcement powers can reach through other agencies and courts.
What comes next
At a hearing the day before the ruling, state attorneys defended the interagency cooperation, comparing ICE’s presence during stops to bringing a drug-sniffing K-9. The coalition’s attorney called the comparison apt “in a way,” except that “a drug dog doesn’t have a salary or an agenda.”
The ruling leaves THP free to keep working with ICE in Memphis while the broader case continues, with the discrimination claim still in play.