Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0087

The federal Refugee Act of 1980 created the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to fund and administer refugee resettlement programs; states may participate and receive federal funds.
Congress authorized ORR to set “standards, goals, and priorities” that states must meet as a condition of funding (8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(6)).
The Attorney General was asked whether Texas must comply with restrictions on federal refugee dollars that are not in federal statutes, and whether Texas is prohibited from performing security verifications when allocating refugee funding.
Supreme Court precedent requires clarity in conditions attached to federal spending: states must receive clear notice of funding conditions to bind them (Pennhurst; Arlington; Murphy).
Federal immigration law broadly occupies the field of immigration policy, creating potential preemption issues for state measures; Equal Protection principles may also constrain state targeting based on security assessments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas must comply with federal refugee funding restrictions that are not in statutory text	Nonstatutory ORR conditions accompanying funds are enforceable against participating states	Conditions must be set out unambiguously; Congress delegated authority to ORR but did not itself give clear notice of extra-statutory conditions	Any conditions not found in statute likely unenforceable because they fail the Supreme Court’s clear-notice rule for federal spending conditions
Whether Texas is legally prohibited from performing security verifications when allocating refugee funding	States may be barred from imposing security checks that conflict with federal immigration law	Federal statute does not expressly prohibit state security verifications; however, specific checks could be preempted or raise constitutional issues depending on design	No general legal prohibition on Texas performing security verifications; specific verification regimes could be preempted or violate Equal Protection depending on how they are implemented

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (federal government has broad power over immigration; certain state immigration measures preempted)
Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) (conditions on federal funds must be unambiguous for recipients to be bound)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) (spending-clause legislation is contractual; states must receive clear notice of funding conditions)
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review standard articulated for equal protection challenges)