Three questions were brought by the state to the appeal: whether plaintiffs invoked an available waiver of the government’s immunity (known as sovereign immunity) from being sued, if they have standing and if Lee violated state law in deploying the National Guard to Memphis.

Lack of standing from plaintiffs

The opinion did not rule whether Lee’s deployment of the National Guard to Memphis was legal, but instead held that the individuals who brought the lawsuit do not have proper standing to do so.

Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Andy D. Bennett wrote the opinion of the Court, which Judges Frank Clement Jr. and Jeffrey Usman signed on to. In their opinion, they state that the opinion of the court is not that no one has standing to bring the lawsuit, just that the legislators who did so lack standing.

In essence, the appellate ruling focused on the barrier to entry for suing and not the constitutionality of deploying the National Guard to Memphis.

According to the court, individual state legislators cannot bring an action against the government unless authorized by the Tennessee General Assembly. It also found that Lee’s decision to deploy the National Guard, stripping them of their right to vote on the issue, counted as “diffuse injuries to legislative bodies, not personal injuries of the individual legislators.”

“To the extent that there is a cognizable injury, any injury in not voting upon or debating the deployment of the Tennessee National Guard is shared equally by the other members of the respective legislative bodies. This is problematic for the legislative plaintiffs’ position because, as noted above, ‘individual members lack standing to assert the institutional interests of a legislature,’” the court found.

The same reasoning was applied locally to the members of the Shelby County Commission and Memphis City Council.

As to Harris’ involvement, the court found that any injuries to him or his office would instead be “purported injuries to Shelby County.”

“For example, he notes financial strains upon the county budget stemming from the National Guard’s presence. Mayor Harris is not the county itself, and he does not assert that the Shelby County Charter confers upon him the authority to file lawsuits on behalf of Shelby County. Absent such authority he has no ability to bring suit on behalf of Shelby County. In fact, the plaintiffs expressly indicate in their briefing on appeal that ‘Mayor Harris… is not purporting to proceed on behalf of Shelby County, but rather, is vindicating executive prerogatives that are vested exclusively in his office.’ Accordingly, while injuries to Shelby County could potentially provide a basis for asserting that the county itself has been injured, injuries to the county are not a basis for providing standing for Mayor Harris,” the court wrote.

Despite reversing Moskal’s decision on the temporary injunction, the appellate court said it is possible that someone does have standing to bring the case, just not the ones currently named as plaintiffs.

Brooke Muckerman is the education and children’s issues and politics reporter for The Commercial Appeal. She can be reached at brooke.muckerman@commercialappeal.com.

Lucas Finton covers crime, policing, jails, the courts and criminal justice policy for The Commercial Appeal. He can be reached by phone or email: (901)208-3922 and Lucas.Finton@commercialappeal.com, and followed on X @LucasFinton.