ILNews

Judge blocks Indiana's Syrian refugee order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis on Monday blocked Republican Gov. Mike Pence's order that barred state agencies from helping Syrian refugees resettle in Indiana, saying the governor's directive "clearly discriminates" against refugees from the war-torn country.

The ruling grants a request for a preliminary injunction from Exodus Refugee Immigration, which helps resettle refugees in Indiana. The group sued shortly after Pence issued his order in November, saying the change would hurt aid groups by withholding reimbursements for housing and medical care to assist Syrian refugees.

Exodus and other organizations have continued to resettle Syrian refugees, though the state has sought to withhold funds earmarked for resettlements. Four Syrian refugees were settled in January, with Exodus planning to settle nearly 200 more this year, Monday's opinion said.

More than two dozen states, most with Republican governors, have taken similar action to suspend Syrian resettlement programs.

Pence released a statement saying he stood by his decision and would quickly appeal. The governor has repeatedly cited the November attacks in Paris as justification, noting that a passport found near one of the suicide bombers had been registered along the route asylum seekers from Syria were taking through Europe.

In her 36-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said the state had a compelling concern to protect its residents, but that withholding federal grant money from the aid group "in no way furthers the state's asserted interest in the safety of Indiana residents."

Pratt also wrote that the governor's directive "clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin."

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Alabama and Pennsylvania, according to the judge's ruling. An attorney for the Indiana plaintiffs, Kenneth Falk, said he believes Pratt's ruling is the first action taken by a judge in such a case.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the refugee group by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said the state was violating the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act by accepting refugees from other countries but not from Syria. At the time, the group said it expected to settle about 19 Syrians vetted by the federal government within the next several months.

Pratt said she granted the preliminary injunction because she believed the plaintiffs would eventually prevail in their lawsuit.

The judge said the state had acknowledged it doesn't have the authority to bar Syrian refugees from crossing into Indiana after the U.S. government already gave them a green light to enter the country. But she said the aim of yanking funding from groups like Exodus was to achieve the same result.

"The State deprives Syrian refugees that are already in Indiana of social services in the hopes that it will deter (voluntary agencies) from resettling other Syrian refugees in the State," she wrote. "This is essentially a policy of punishing Syrian refugees already in Indiana in the hopes that no more will come."

Pratt added that the state's decision to not pass on funds to Exodus would mean the group might be forced to cut funding to other refugee clients — not just those from Syria.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT