Lifetime Orders Of Protection

This bill proposes to increase the penalty for violating a lifetime order of protection from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class E felony. This change applies specifically when the original conviction that led to the lifetime order involved the use of force against a victim. The bill aims to strengthen the legal consequences for those who disregard such protective orders.

TN HB1765 is a house bill in the Tennessee 114th General Assembly, sponsored by Mary Littleton (R), currently “Introduced” since January 20, 2026.

We track 9,160 Tennessee bills this session, 71 of them sponsored by Mary Littleton.

Supporters of the bill argue that it enhances the safety of victims by imposing stricter penalties on offenders who violate lifetime protection orders. They believe this measure will deter potential violators and send a strong message that domestic violence and related offenses will not be tolerated.

Critics of the bill may contend that increasing penalties could lead to disproportionate consequences for offenders, particularly in cases where the violation might not involve serious harm. They may also argue that the focus should be on prevention and support for victims rather than solely on punitive measures.

The analysis of HB1765, which seeks to increase penalties for violations of lifetime orders of protection, reveals no direct conflicts of interest with Representative Mary Littleton's personal financial interests. Her primary occupation as a legislator and ownership of Littleton Ranch do not intersect with the crime and law enforcement policy area of the bill. The financial assets listed, including investments in RAYMOND JAMES, PRINCIPAL, and TRADITIONS FIRST BANK, do not have a direct or indirect connection to the legislative subjects of gun control or tort reform.

Given that the bill focuses on enhancing criminal penalties and does not involve financial sectors or industries related to the sponsor's personal business or investment holdings, the risk of conflict is minimal. The bill's impact on crime and law enforcement does not present any opportunity for personal financial gain for Representative Littleton.

Overall, the lack of overlap between the sponsor's financial interests and the bill's subject matter suggests a low risk of conflict of interest. The legislation appears to be motivated by policy considerations rather than personal financial benefit.

Unlike federal analysis based on campaign donations, state analysis examines legislators' personal financial interests — their jobs, businesses, and investments.

Items marked "AI-researched" are generated from public sources but have not been independently verified. Verified data is sourced from official legislature websites and disclosure filings.