Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence
838 F.3d 902
7th Cir.2016Background
- Federal Refugee Act (8 U.S.C. § 1522) funds state refugee resettlement programs; funds must be used without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.
- Indiana participates in the state refugee assistance program, contracts with private agencies (including Exodus) and reimburses them for social services to refugees.
- Governor of Indiana directed that state funds not be used to reimburse costs associated with refugees whose documents list Syria as their country of origin, citing security concerns about potential terrorist infiltration.
- Exodus, a private resettlement agency, sued after the state refused to reimburse it for services to Syrian refugees; the district court granted a preliminary injunction in Exodus’s favor.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit (Posner, J.) affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding the state’s policy likely violates federal law and that Exodus would suffer irreparable harm absent relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana’s refusal to reimburse services for Syrian-origin refugees violates 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(5) (anti-discrimination requirement) | Exodus: The state’s exclusion discriminates on the basis of nationality and thus violates § 1522(a)(5) | State: The exclusion is based on safety/security concerns, not nationality, so it is not discriminatory | Held for Exodus: The policy targets Syrians (national origin) and constitutes impermissible discrimination under federal law |
| Whether the governor’s asserted security interest justifies the discriminatory funding decision | Exodus: No evidence links Syrian refugees to terrorism; state security concern speculative and cannot override statutory nondiscrimination | State: Compelling interest in protecting residents from terrorists posing as refugees justifies differential treatment | Held for Exodus: State presented no concrete evidence; security-justification insufficient to validate the discrimination at the injunction stage |
| Whether the preliminary injunction was appropriate (likelihood of success and irreparable harm) | Exodus: Likely to succeed on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm if funding withheld (inability to provide services and loss of refugees) | State: Denying funds is within state discretion; no irreparable harm shown that outweighs state interest | Held for Exodus: District court correctly found likelihood of success and irreparable harm, so injunction affirmed |
| Whether state action conflicts with federal refugee/resettlement scheme or federal primacy in immigration | Exodus: Federal law governs refugee admission and distribution of related funds; states cannot impose contrary conditions | State: Argues deference for security measures and state administration of federal funds | Held for Exodus: Federal statutory scheme controls; state cannot condition federal funds in a way that discriminates on nationality |
Key Cases Cited
- None of the opinion’s cited authorities appear as official reporter case citations in the excerpt provided.