JACKSON – The Thomas More Law Center, a 501(c)(3) organization, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Monday seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the state of Tennessee, Sen. John Stevens, R-Dist. 24, and Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, R-Dist. 40, asserting the federal government is imposing the resettlement of refugees in the state without compensation.
The brief points out since Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act (Act) in 1980, proponents, supporters and drafters of the Act “recognized the significant financial impact the resettlement of refugees imposes on state budgets.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a leading sponsor of the Act, declared the purpose for amending refugee resettlement law was “to assure full and adequate federal support for refugee resettlement programs by authorizing permanent funding for state, local and volunteer agency projects.”
Because Congress recognized the admission of refugees is a federal decision that lies outside normal immigration procedures, it stated the federal government “has a clear responsibility to assist communities in resettling refugees and help them become self-supporting.”
So, in crafting the Act, Congress did so with the intention that state and local agencies not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible, and instead making the federal government entirely responsible for funding its program.
The three categories of assistance outlined by Kennedy during the debate that led to passage of the Act were cash, medical and social services, which he stated were three types of federal assistance provided through a 100-percent reimbursement to the states for all refugees who do not qualify for the regular AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Medicaid programs.
As passed by Congress, the Act authorized 36 months of full reimbursement to a state for the cost of each refugee resettled and participating in certain benefit programs.
States received a 100 percent reimbursement of their costs under AFDC and Medicaid programs for each participating refugee.
According to the brief, federal funds initially supported the refugee resettlement program, but funds were subsequently reduced and, by 1991, completely eliminated, causing states to become responsible for the costs of the program.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) have acknowledged the costs of the federal refugee resettlement program have been transferred from the federal government to the states.
Tennessee claims in 2015 it spent over $31 million state dollars to support the federal refugee resettlement program through TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program.
So the federal government could shift more program costs onto the states, federal regulations mandate state refugee resettlement offices first determine if a refugee is eligible for Medicaid, forcing states like Tennessee to pay significant portions of these costs from state tax dollars.
While some states still voluntarily participate in the refugee resettlement program to place refugees, Tennessee, like a growing number of states, exercised its right to withdraw from the program in 2007 due to mounting unreimbursed costs.
Tennessee notified ORR by letter dated Oct. 29, 2007 of its intent to withdraw from the refugee resettlement program effective June 30, 2008.
According to the complaint, despite notifying the federal government that it declined to further implement, fund or participate in the program, the federal government, through various regulations and statutes, coerced the state to continue funding the refugee resettlement program by threatening the state with loss of Medicaid funding.
The federal government, in direct violation of constitutional principles of state sovereignty, then bypassed the decision of Tennessee’s elected representatives to opt out of the program, by mobilizing a private agency to assume control and direction of the refugee resettlement program in Tennessee.
As a result, the federal government basically nullified the decision of the people of Tennessee to withdraw from a voluntary federal program and commandeer state funds to support the federal program.
TennCare is jointly funded by Tennessee and the federal government and in 2016 the federal contribution to TennCare was almost $7 billion, representing 20 percent of Tennessee’s total overall budget for the fiscal year.
Since 2008, when Tennessee withdrew from the refugee resettlement program, until 2016, the federal Medicaid contribution ranged from over $4 billion to nearly $7 billion, representing 17 to 21 percent of Tennessee’s budget.
During the same period of time, the federal government has resettled 13,000 refugees within Tennessee.
Statute mandates the state of Tennessee to provide TennCare to help fund the refugee program or risk losing the federal contributions to TennCare.
Under federal law, unlike the vast majority of immigrants, individuals deemed “refugees” may apply for Medicaid programs immediately upon arrival to the United States.
That means, when a refugee enrolls in Medicaid, the federal government is shifting a substantial part of the costs of the refugee resettlement program onto the states, including states, like Tennessee, that have withdrawn from further voluntary participation in the program.
Instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from further participation in the program, the federal government bypassed the state and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee (CCT), a private organization, to continue the program, even though federal regulations specifically permitted ORR to discontinue resettlement of refugees in Tennessee.
CCT subsequently established an entity known as Tennessee Office for Refugees (TOR), whose primary purpose is to replace the state and continue the federal refugee resettlement program in Tennessee, notwithstanding the state’s withdrawal from the program.
TOR is federally contracted to disburse federal funds to local resettlement offices in Tennessee, monitor the resettlement by local agencies operating in the state and establish policies and procedures for the local resettlement agencies consistent with directives from ORR.
As a result, TOR forces the state to expend substantial amounts of state taxpayer money to fund the resettlement program even though Tennessee has essentially withdrawn from the program.
However, if Tennessee refuses to expend state funds to provide refugee services through Medicaid, the state is subject to losing nearly $7 billion, representing 20 percent of its total state budget.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he threatened loss of over 10 percent of a state’s overall budget … is economic dragooning that leaves the states with no real option,” and therefore exceeds the constitutional bounds of Congress’ power under the Constitution’s Spending Clause.
The operation of the refugee resettlement program through a private entity commandeers Tennessee’s funds through Medicaid with the threatened loss of nearly $7 billion, 20 percent of the state’s total budget, money it says is needed to fund services critical to the health and welfare of countless Tennesseans.
The complaint alleges the federal government’s actions deprive Tennessee of its sovereignty and regulate it in its sovereign capacity.
Not only does the refugee resettlement program commandeer state Medicaid funds, it commandeers other state funds through health and welfare programs and public schooling, including the program known as “English Language Learners,” mandated by federal law.
In conclusion, the complaint states the federal government is therefore carrying out its refugee resettlement program through dragooning of state funds and instrumentalities, which is impermissible under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in excess of the federal government’s powers under the Constitution’s Spending Clause.
The complaint is asking the court to enter a declaratory judgment against the federal government stating the defendants have exceeded the federal powers under the Spending Clause and violated the 10th Amendment.
It also asks the court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from resettling additional refugees within the state of Tennessee unless and until the U.S. government pays for such resettlement and absorbs all costs for the resettlement program that are currently being incurred by the state of Tennessee.
Plaintiffs are also asking the court to award recovery of their costs and attorneys’ fees.
