Deregulating Interior Design in TN
“I just received word this morning [02.03.2026] that there was a bill introduced to remove interior design representation at the state board level and deregulate the interior design profession as a whole. This means that not only will new designers not be allow to register with the state, but current RID's will be striped of their registration. Bills like this are proposed across the US often but what makes this particular bill alarming is this bill is a Governor's administrative priority and a Senate Leader Sponsored bill which gives it a better chance of finding approval.”
- Tiffanie Clegg, IIDA, NCIDQ, VP of Advocacy, IIDA TN Chapter
This is grave news indeed. Tennessee has had the current Title Act for Interior Design in place since 1991, and should the proposed bill be approved, Tennessee’s rights and protections for the predominately women led profession of Interior Design would be taken back over 30 years and join the minority of states that have no legislation concerning Interior Design. For this and the following reason, I cannot help but feel that these proposed changes are a direct assault on the livelihood and voice of women. Not only do SB2224 and HB2530 (see source quotations below) propose to eliminate the state credentials and oversight from Interior Designers, but they also propose removing the requirement of at least one female on the State Board of Architects and Engineers. Should this bill be passed, it would have far reaching negative impacts for the public, Architects, Engineers, current Registered Interior Designers (RIDs), students and professionals who aspire to become RIDs, and the next generation of designers. Instead of Interior Designers once again having to explain and prove the value of what they contribute to society, lawmakers should be the ones having to explain and justify their reasons. But as a RID myself, I will take some time to articulate a defense for my profession. Although I have many thoughts and feelings on the subject, I will limit them to 5 bullet points about how this would impact RIDs and the Interior Design profession as a whole.
Loss of professional credibility for Interior Designers
Personally, the credibility piece is very important to me as a new business owner. Many of us Interior Designers are small business owners (and if not, being an RID would help when job hunting and negotiating salaries). Ethically, Interior Designers cannot show previous work from another firm because it is owned by that firm. How can we demonstrate to colleagues and prospective clients that we have the expertise to complete their project if we have no testimonials or previous work to show? Being a Registered Interior Designer shows that we have been tested in the knowledge of our field, gained real life experience, been spoken for by 5 industry professionals, fulfill ongoing continuing education requirements, and are accountable to a state board for our professional conduct. When you hire a Registered Interior Designer you can be confident that they know how to successfully lead a project from concept to completion through professional coordination and collaboration between all of the disciplines and parties that it takes to make a design a reality.
Decline in health, safety, and welfare for the public
To maintain a Registration an Interior Designer must complete 24 continuing education units every 2 years, 13 of those must be in Health, Safety, and Welfare. If RIDs are deleted from the code, that standard and requirement would be also. Architects and Engineers are responsible for the structures over our heads, but Interior Designers are responsible for designing the spaces we have direct contact with everyday. Interior Designers specify floors, walls, ceilings, countertops, cabinetry, fixtures, doors, hardware, furniture, textiles, protective coatings, etc. We are not only responsible for applying and adhering to codes related to ADA, fire, and egress; but in the absence of state legislation banning the use of many toxic chemicals in products, Interior Designers are on the front lines of the health, safety, and welfare for the public when selecting and specifying products - whether it is for a commercial or residential setting. For example, some chemicals that are commonly used, not banned despite being harmful to human health, and RIDs are educated to avoid, reduce, or carefully consider the application are phthalates, fluoropolymers, formaldehyde (and other solvents) and brominated flame retardants. These are linked to endocrine disruption and cancer among other negative impacts to human health. Eliminating RIDs from the Tennessee Code would result in eroding professional expectations and the highest standard of excellence available to Interior Designers in this state.
Contribute further to the confusion about what Interior Designers do
As it is (with a Title Act rather than a Practice Act), there is already enough confusion about what Interior Designers do (for more information see previous posting “Designers vs Decorators”). Professional Interior Designers are exasperated by the all too frequent assumption by the public (and even design professionals) of being decorators primarily dealing in paint colors and throw pillows. This is caused by the fact that most decorators call themselves “Interior Designers” although they have not earned a degree at an accredited institution, gained professional experience, or passed the national interior design exam (the NCIDQ). Upon qualifying for the title, the one thing that professional Interior Designers can call themselves that decorators cannot is a “Registered Interior Designer.” Removing the Title Act would make it even more difficult for Interior Designers to communicate simply what we do, which costs us an endless amount of time and money. And the confusion of terms certainly does not help the public either, but, in fact, causes harm since someone can unknowingly hire an “Interior Designer” who has not been trained to handle their project since there is no way of differentiating between designers and decorators.
Harm the public by removing professional accountability for Interior Designers
One of the purposes of the State Board of Architects and Engineers is to provide regulation of the field of design to protect the interests of the public. A Registration can be suspended based on complaints in the same way that a license can, so there is peace of mind when hiring a RID because they have to remain in good standing in their profession to retain the title. If a consumer feels that they have been the victim of unprofessional conduct by an RID, they can file a formal complaint with the State Board of Architects and Engineering Examiners. The Board will then review, possibly fine, and in extreme cases suspend or revoke the designer’s Registration. If RIDs are deleted and removed from the Board, the public will have no professional recourse should they need it. Deleting RIDs from the Tennessee Code would also omit the “peace-of-mind” factor we can currently offer prospective clients - not to mention the negative impact disreputable designers would make on our profession.
Cause Interior Designers to relocate to other states
Honestly, my husband (a licensed civil engineer) and I have spoken about relocating to another state where the female dominated profession of Interior Design is valued and respected - and we cannot be the only ones. Personally, I do not want to lose the distinguished level I have attained in my field, so I have already applied for and received a license by comity from the District of Columbia. Sometimes clients require a Registration or License to qualify for a project, but regardless, being an RID is a valuable asset when competing for work. While having a DC license will preserve the status of my Registration, it cannot provide the peace-of-mind factor for prospective clients that a Tennessee Registration would because it would lack the professional oversight of the Tennessee State Board (unless their project is in DC, of course).
In summary, to strip a professional of their title that they have worked their entire career to attain and maintain is extremely serious. It has profound implications for their livelihood and very identity. Tennessee senators and representatives, please protect the value of what professional Interior Designers do to protect your health, safety, and welfare and vote “NO” for these bills.
P.S. If we are attempting to change the code so radically, we should be moving forward rather than backwards and change Interior Design to a Practice Act with a License and permitting privileges like DC because it is in the best interest of both the public and the profession.
Sources and Other Voices:
This is the current Tennessee Code regarding the composition of the State Board of Architects and Engineers. Notice that at least 1 female representative is required.
62-2-201. Board of examiners — Composition — Terms of members.
(a)
(1) There is created a state board of examiners for architects and engineers, called the board in this part and parts 3-8 of this chapter.
(2) The board shall include, where possible, at least one (1) female.
(3) This board shall consist of eight (8) members to be appointed by the governor, three (3) to be registered architects who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested architect groups including, but not limited to, the representative professional architects of the state, three (3) to be registered engineers who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested engineering groups including, but not limited to, the representative professional engineering society of the state, one (1) to be a registered landscape architect who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested landscape architect groups including, but not limited to, the representative professional landscape architecture society of the state, and one (1) to be a registered interior designer who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested interior design groups including, but not limited to, the representative professional interior design society of the state. The governor shall consult with interested statewide architect, engineering, landscape architect, and interior design groups including, but not limited to, the professional societies listed in this subdivision (a)(3) to determine qualified persons to fill the positions. This subdivision (a)(3) shall not apply to the appointment of the public member of the board.
And this is the new proposed code in Senate Bill 2224 / House Bill. Note that not only is representation for Interior Designers removed from the State Board of Architects and Engineers, but that the requirement for at least one female representative is also removed.
SECTION 8. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 62-2-201, is amended by deleting the section and substituting:
(a)
(1) There is created a state board of examiners for architects, engineers, and land surveyors called the board in this part, parts 1 and 3-8 of this chapter, and chapter 18, part 1 of this title.
(2) The board consists of eleven (11) members as follows: (A) Ten (10) professional members to be appointed by the governor; three (3) of whom are registered architects who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested architect groups, including, but not limited to, the representative professional architects of this state; three (3) of whom are registered engineers who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested engineering groups, including, but not limited to, the representative professional engineering society of this state; three (3) of whom are registered land surveyors who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested land surveyor groups, including, but not limited to, the Tennessee association of professional surveyors; and one (1) of whom is a registered landscape architect who may be appointed from lists of qualified persons submitted by interested landscape architect groups, including, but not limited to, the representative professional landscape architecture society of this state. The governor shall consult with interested statewide architect, engineering, land surveying, and landscape architect groups, including, but not limited to, the professional societies listed in this subdivision (a)(2)(A) to determine qualified persons to fill the positions.
Currently Tennessee Code Annotated 602-2 Part 9 is the Interior Designers Title Registration Act. The new proposed code in Senate Bill 2224 / House Bill 2530 uncerimonially and without explanation deletes part 9 entirely.
SECTION 19. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 62, Chapter 2, Part 9, is amended by deleting the part in its entirety.
Some interesting contributions to this dicussion by Arnita Ozgener, a well known patron of the arts in the Nashville area and Registered Interior Designer:
In the current legislative environment, Interior Design is being singled out because it is classified as a "Title Act" rather than a "Practice Act." This distinction makes it an easy target for lawmakers who view it as the most "optional" form of professional oversight. Here is why they are pushing to deregulate Interior Design while leaving Architects and Engineers alone:
1. "Title Act" vs. "Practice Act"
Most of the 25 professions (like Architects and Engineers) have "Practice Acts," meaning you are legally prohibited from performing the work without a license. Tennessee's interior design law is primarily a Title Act, which only regulates who can call themselves a "Registered Interior Designer." Lawmakers argue that if someone can already do the work without a license, the state shouldn't be involved in "protecting" a professional title.
2. The "Safety" Argument Gap
Lawmakers often use a Harm-Based Standard to judge licenses. Architects/Engineers: There is a direct, undeniable link between their work and buildings collapsing or fires. Interior Designers: While designers argue they manage complex fire codes and egress, many legislators (and groups like The Beacon Center of Tennessee) categorize their work as "aesthetic," arguing that "bad wallpaper" doesn't kill people, thus the license is seen as an unnecessary barrier to entry.
3. Lower Political Lobbying Power
Architects and Engineers have powerful, well-funded national and state lobbies (AIA Tennessee and ACEC Tennessee) that frame their licenses as "critical infrastructure security." Interior design organizations, while active, often lack the same level of political leverage in Nashville to defend what is perceived by some as a "luxury" or "boutique" regulation.
Write to these people.
Voting on SB 2224 happens in two stages: first within specialized committees and then by the full state legislature. Because this bill proposes significant changes to Interior Design and other professions, these members are the key decision-makers.
The Committee Vote (The "Gatekeepers") Before the bill can reach the floor, it must pass through the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. This is where the lobby for interior designers is currently focusing its pressure.
Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (9 Members):
Chairman: Sen. Paul Bailey (R) sen.paul.bailey@capitol.tn.gov
1st Vice Chair: Sen. Kerry Roberts (R) sen.kerry.roberts@capitol.tn.gov
2nd Vice Chair: Sen. Paul Rose (R) sen.paul.rose@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. Raumesh Akbari (D) sen.raumesh.akbari@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. Jack Johnson (R) — The bill's sponsor sen.jack.johnson@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. Shane Reeves (R) sen.shane.reeves@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. John Stevens (R) sen.john.stevens@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. Bo Watson (R) sen.bo.watson@capitol.tn.gov
Sen. Ken Yager (R) sen.ken.yager@capitol.tn.gov
And then her thoughtful and well articulated letter to the senators and representatives:
I am writing to you as a Registered Interior Designer in Tennessee, proudly holding this credential under the state’s title act established in 1991. My registration reflects over 25 years of dedicated education, experience, and adherence to professional standards, and I urge you to maintain and support the current system of registration for Interior Designers in our state. As policymakers, your decisions directly impact the professions that safeguard public well-being, and preserving this registration is essential for several key reasons.
First and foremost, registration ensures the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Registered Interior Designers in Tennessee are qualified to provide plans and specifications related to reflected ceiling plans, space utilization (not affecting life safety), furnishings, and non-structural elements within buildings. This involves compliance with building codes, fire safety regulations, accessibility standards, and other critical guidelines that prevent hazards and promote safe environments. Without registration, unqualified individuals could misrepresent their expertise, potentially leading to designs that compromise safety in homes, offices, schools, and public spaces.
Additionally, the registration process upholds high professional standards through rigorous requirements, including accredited education (such as a 4- or 5-year degree in interior design), diversified experience, and examinations. This not only elevates the quality of services provided but also fosters excellence and uniformity in the industry. As a registered professional, I stay updated on the latest advancements in design, materials, and regulations, ensuring that my work contributes positively to the human experience—improving productivity, aesthetics, and overall well-being.
Furthermore, registration protects consumers by clearly distinguishing qualified designers from those without the necessary credentials. Clients in Tennessee can trust that a “Registered Interior Designer” has met state-approved standards, reducing risks and liability while promoting confidence in hiring decisions. This system also benefits the economy by supporting a skilled workforce that drives innovation and high-quality projects, ultimately enhancing Tennessee’s reputation as a hub for professional design services.
Registration mandates specific education (e.g., a CIDA-accredited degree or equivalent, plus experience), which encourages institutions like the University of Tennessee or Middle Tennessee State University to maintain high-quality, accredited curricula focused on health, safety, and welfare. This alignment fosters excellence, ensuring graduates are well-prepared for real-world practice and voluntary certifications like NCIDQ, which correlate with higher career success.
If the Interior Designer registration is repealed, students may choose to practice in other states where that recognition still exists. The repeal of this registration may also cause existing Interior Design practitioners to move to other states like Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, or Virginia, in order to remain state-certified, thus depleting Tennessee's tax base and constricting the design and construction marketplace.
In the state of Tennessee there are approximately 1500 small businesses or as many as 5,000 citizens that are associated or ran by Registered Interior Designers. If those businesses ceased to exist or move to neighboring states that do honor and uphold registration it could impact the state of Tennessee in the millions as well as affect many Tennessee families.
I respectfully request that you oppose any efforts to eliminate or alter the registration requirements and instead consider ways to strengthen support for licensed professions that serve the public good, including changing Interior Designers from a Title Act to a Practice Act.
For these reasons, and many others, please voice your opposition now to SB 2224/HB2530 and the repeal of Tennessee's voluntary interior design registration.
And then some additional thoughts from Jodi Davis, IIDA, LEED GA about why this might be happening:
SB 2224 is tied to the Go Build Tennessee Act, which created a contractor‑controlled corporation to “accelerate construction activity.” Its board includes only contractors—no architects, engineers, landscape architects, interior designers, or planners. That exclusion shifts influence over workforce development and regulatory language entirely to the construction industry. This structure encourages contractors to take on work traditionally performed by regulated design professionals. When the state gives a contractor‑led body funding and authority, it naturally weakens the role of licensed designers who protect public health, safety, and welfare. SB 2224 continues this trend by expanding contractor authority and blurring the line between design and construction.
This is how deregulation typically advances: exemptions grow until design roles become optional and eventually irrelevant. A group tasked with “accelerating building activity” that excludes design professionals is a clear warning sign. In short, SB 2224 is part of a broader effort to erode professional boundaries and consolidate decision‑making within the construction industry, affecting the entire ecosystem of regulated design and public‑safety oversight.
