The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on November 2, 2026, that a case involving the governance of the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority is moot. The court's decision came after the General Assembly amended the law that was being challenged, which significantly changed how the airport authority's board of commissioners is structured. This ruling affects the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, which had previously contested the law's constitutionality.

The case, titled Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Bill Lee, Governor, et al., was filed under docket number M2023-01678-SC-R11-CV. It focused on a law enacted by the Tennessee General Assembly in 2023, which required changes to the board of commissioners for airport authorities in counties with a metropolitan form of government and a population exceeding 500,000. The law specifically targeted the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority (MNAA), altering the size of its board and the appointment process for its members.

In response to the law, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County argued that it violated several provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, including the Local Legislation Clause and the Anti-Ripper Clause. The trial court initially agreed, ruling that the law was unconstitutional. This decision was partially upheld by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding the Local Legislation Clause but did not address the Anti-Ripper Clause.

The case eventually reached the Tennessee Supreme Court, which granted review to address whether the law violated the Local Legislation Clause and the Anti-Ripper Clause. However, during the proceedings, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 2473, which amended the law in question, effectively changing the structure of the airport authority's governance.

Justice Sarah K. Campbell delivered the opinion of the court, stating, "We hold that these recent legislative amendments render the claims in this case moot." The court emphasized that the amendments had repealed the provisions that were being challenged, thereby eliminating the legal controversy surrounding the case. Justice Campbell was joined by Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins and Justices Holly Kirby, Dwight E. Tarwater, and Mary L. Wagner.

The court ruled that because the specific provisions of the law had been repealed, there was no longer a justiciable controversy. The court explained that a case is considered moot when an event occurs that extinguishes the legal controversy attached to the issue. In this case, the amendments to the law meant that the court could not provide any meaningful relief to the Metropolitan Government.

Metro Nashville had argued that the case should not be dismissed as moot because it believed the legislature might enact similar laws in the future. However, the court found that there was no reasonable expectation that the specific provisions of the challenged law would be reinstated. The court noted, "Unless those provisions are reenacted, there is no danger of enforcement by the state defendants."

The ruling has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future. It clarifies that when a law is amended or repealed, the original legal challenge may become moot, even if there are ongoing concerns about legislative actions targeting specific local governments. The court's decision reinforces the principle that courts do not issue advisory opinions and only decide cases that present actual controversies.

Looking ahead, the case cannot be appealed further as the Supreme Court's ruling is final. However, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County has a separate lawsuit pending that challenges another law affecting its governance. This ongoing litigation may provide an opportunity for the government to address its concerns regarding legislative actions that it believes unfairly target local authorities.