About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


[1] (February 26, 2016)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthabfnh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CRS Reports & Analysis Legal Sidebar Federal Court Declines to Bar the Resettlement of Syrian Refugees in Texas 02/26/2016 In a decision issued on February 8, 2016, a federal district court denied the State of Texas's request that the federal government and a private refugee relief organization be temporarily barred from resettling Syrian refugees within the state pending resolution of Texas's challenge to such resettlement. Texas had filed this suit in December 2015, after terrorist attacks in PaiaFranc- and San Bernardino California, perpetrated by persons with ties or allegiance to the lslami.Sate, due to concerns that terrorists could enter the United States through the refugee resettlement program. The court's decision focused on the standards that plaintiffs must meet to obtain a preliminary injunction, discussed below. However, in so doing, the court construed language in Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requiring the federal government to consult regularly ... with State and local governments about refugee placement. The court's reading of this provision could have implications for certain congressional proposals to give states greater control over refugee resettlement. Overview of the Court's Decision The court denied the preliminary injunction, in part, because it found that Texas had failed to establish a nial threat of ir-reprable injury if the federal government and the private refugee relief organization were allowed to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas. Such a showing is reauired for a preliminary injunction, along with a showing that (A) the party seeking the injunction has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (B) the alleged injury, if the injunction is denied, outweighs any harm that would result if the injunction is granted; and (C) the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest. In finding that Texas failed to meet its burden of showing irreparable injury, the court noted that the evidence produced by Texas showed only that Syrian refugeespose smerisk. Texas did not, in the court's view, demonstrate that torisshae infilre the refue rorm, or that the particular individuals whose settlement Texas sought to block are refugees . It thus found the evidence insufficient to establish a substantial risk of irreparable injury. The court similarly rejected Texas's argument that it was irreparably harmed because the defendants' failure to provide Texas with detailed information about any refugees settled in Texas deprived Texas of an alleged statt right to foreknowledge of refugees' backgrounds that had been created by INA §412's requirement that federal agencies consult with state and local governments about refugee placement. The court further found that a clause in Texas's contract with the relief organization, which purported to establish a presumption of irreparable harm if the organization were to breach the contract was immaterial, since the laei noinin onh cr and 4Din5i in itself justify the extraordinary rlief' of a preliminary injunction. The court also found that Texas was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the refugee resettlement plans because it has no viable cause f acion against the federal government. Texas's argument here had been based, in part, on its view that the federal government's actions in resettling refugees in Texas run afoul of INA..41.2, which, in relevant part, provides that federal officials: shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local government and private nonprofit