Federal court dismisses refugee lawsuit
State wanted feds to pay for resettlement program
In a significant blow to the Tennessee General Assembly, a federal appeals court dismissed the Volunteer State’s lawsuit against the federal government over refugee resettlement on Wednesday.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the actions of a lower court, dismissing the long-standing lawsuit that sought to require the federal government to pay for all costs associated with the refugee resettlement program.
In the lawsuit, initiated by the legislature in 2016, the state argued the federal government was violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The 10th Amendment says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states.
A federal judge dismissed the case in March 2018, leading the state to appeal the case to the 6th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Tennessee.
“Because the General Assembly has not alleged an injury that gives it standing, and because the General Assembly has not established that it has the authority to bring suit on behalf of Tennessee, we affirm the district court’s judgement,” Judge Danny Boggs wrote in an opinion released Wednesday morning.
The appeals court’s decision comes more than four months after the three judge panel heard from attorneys representing Tennessee and the federal government.
Challenge over Medicaid funding
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case that enacted provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the state argued Tennessee’s state budget is directly impacted by the federal government’s resettlement efforts.
The program, which resettles refugees around the country, was designed to create a permanent procedure for the admission of refugees into the U.S.
When the appeals court heard the case, John Bursch, an attorney hired by the Thomas More Law Center, which was representing Tennessee, argued the state could lose $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding if it did not provide health care to refugees.
Samantha Lee Chaifetz, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, took issue with such a claim, saying Tennessee had not submitted a Medicaid proposal without funding health care coverage for refugees.
Coleman was not sympathetic to the state’s claim, noting that Tennessee voluntarily participates in Medicaid.
“The General Assembly has not identified an injury that it has suffered, such as disruption of the legislative process, a usurpation of its authority, or nullification of anything it has done,” he wrote.
Outside lawyer represented Tenn.
The appeals court also noted that the state attorney general did not represent Tennessee in the lawsuit as another reason to dismiss the case.
After the legislature overwhelmingly approved a resolution in 2016 ordering the lawsuit, former Gov. Bill Haslam refused to sign the measure and the attorney general declined to initiate the case.
In March, Chaifetz asked the 6th Circuit to dismiss the case in part because Tennessee did not have a law on the books that allowed the legislature to hire outside counsel to represent it as a plaintiff.
Coleman said the legislature had not identified any authority in state law that granted it the ability to initiate a lawsuit. He pointed to the state law that says the attorney general has the discretion to defend measures passed by the legislature.
“This statute is not applicable because the Attorney General chose not to file suit against the federal government, rather than choosing not to defend the constitutionality of some law that the General Assembly enacted,” said Coleman. The appeals court’s dismissal of the case will be welcomed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition — both of which criticized the lawsuit.
In a statement, Hedy Weinberg, executive of the Aclu-tennessee, said her organization would “continue to remain vigilant and ready to act against politicians’ attempts to undermine refugee resettlement” in the United States.
Lisa Sherman-nikolaus, TIRRC’S policy director, said, “After two embarrassing defeats in the courts, the legislature must finally put this hateful lawsuit to rest and put our taxpayer resources to better use, such as funding public schools and increasing access to health care.”
The appeals court’s decision to dismiss the case leaves just one option left for the Tennessee if it wants to move forward: Make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is not immediately clear whether the plaintiffs will make such an appeal. Michelle Piccolo, digital communications coordinator for the Thomas More Law Center, said Wednesday afternoon that the law firm was still reading the latest opinion and did not immediately have a comment.
Reach Joel Ebert at jebert@ tennessean.com or 615-772-1681 and on Twitter @joelebert29.