Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence

165 F.Supp.3d 718

Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.Mike Pence in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana, John Wernert in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01858-TWP-DKL

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Signed February 29, 2016

Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA, Jan P. Mensz, Gavin Minor Rose, Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation, Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Heather Hagan McVeigh, Patricia Orloff Erdmann, Thomas M. Fisher, Office of the Attorney General, Jefferson S. Garn, Jonathan R. Sichtermann, Indiana Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) by Plaintiff Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. (“Exodus”). (Filing No. 6.) In late 2015, Indiana Governor Mike Pence (“Governor Pence”) directed Indiana state agencies to not pay federal grant funds to local refugee resettlement agencies, such as Exodus, for social services these agencies provide to the Syrian refugees they help resettle in Indiana. Governor Pence asserts that he issued this directive to deter the national resettlement organizations from placing Syrian refugees in Indiana. Shortly thereafter, Exodus filed its Complaint against defendants Governor Pence and John Wernert, the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, (collectively, the “State”), asserting that the State's action was preempted by federal law and discriminated against Syrians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Exodus seeks to enjoin the State's action pending the resolution of this case. The parties submitted evidence, and the Court held a hearing on Exodus's motion. For the reasons that follow, Exodus has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its equal protection claim. The State's conduct clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin. Although the State says it has a compelling reason for doing so—the safety of Indiana residents—the withholding of federal grant funds from Exodus that it would use to provide social services to Syrian refugees in no way furthers the State's asserted interest in the safety of Indiana residents. Exodus has also made the other showings necessary to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, Exodus's motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED . (Filing No. 6).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. In each case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). “To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must establish [1] that it is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and [4] that issuing an injunction is in the public interest.” Grace Schools v. Burwell , 801 F.3d 788, 795 (7th Cir.2015) ; see Winter , 555 U.S. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365. “The court weighs the balance of potential harms on a 'sliding scale' against the movant's likelihood of success: the more likely he is to win, the less the balance of harms must weigh in his favor; the less likely he is to win, the more it must weigh in his favor.” Turnell v. CentiMark Corp. , 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir.2015). “The sliding scale approach is not mathematical in nature, rather it is more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief.” Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enterprises, Inc. , 695 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir.2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Stated another way, the district court ‘sit[s] as would a chancellor in equity’ and weighs all the factors, ‘seeking at all times to minimize the costs of being mistaken.’ ” Id. (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co. , 971 F.2d 6, 12 (7th Cir.1992) ).

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Resettlement of Refugees in the United States and Indiana

The Refugee Act of 1980, which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, sets forth the policies and procedures that govern the resettlement of refugees from other countries in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1157, et seq. For purposes of federal law, the term “refugee” is defined as:

Any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality... and who is unable or unwilling to return to, or is unable and unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The number of refugees accepted by the United States is determined by the President each year as “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(2). The President has determined that up to 85,000 refugees shall be admitted to the United States in 2016, at least 10,000 of whom will be Syrian.

The Refugee Act created the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) within the Department of Health and Human Services to fund and administer the federal programs related to the resettlement of refugees in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1521. Additionally, within the Department of State, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (“PRM”) is responsible for determining which refugees are eligible for resettlement. PRM funds and manages nine Resettlement Support Centers (“RSCs”) around the world, which are operated by international nongovernmental organizations. The RSCs prepare applications for refugees seeking resettlement in the United States. This process includes the collection of information from the refugees, security screenings at the direction of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, and health screenings. The approval process for refugees through PRM usually takes eighteen to twenty-four months.

Refugees accepted for resettlement in the United States are placed into all fifty states through one of three mechanisms: (1) the voluntary adoption of a State Plan for the acceptance of refugees pursuant to the Refugee Act; (2) the Wilson-Fish program; or (3) a joint private-public partnership. Indiana elected to proceed under the first option by adopting a State Plan for resettling refugees in Indiana. To receive federal funds for the resettlement of refugees, the State Plan submitted to ORR must comply with the various requirements of the Refugee Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(6)(A). Indiana's refugee resettlement program is administered by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (“FSSA”).

B. Exodus's Role in Resettling Refugees in Indiana

Exodus, an Indiana non-profit corporation, is one of three local resettlement agencies in Indiana that is dedicated to assisting refugees who are selected for resettlement in Indiana. Its organizational mission is to “work with refugees—worldwide victims of persecution, injustice, and war—to establish self-sufficient lives in freedom and sanctuary for themselves and their families.” (Filing No. 16-1 at 2). Once a refugee has been approved for resettlement by the federal government, national organizations known as Voluntary Agencies provide reception and placement services. After a Voluntary Agency accepts a refugee for resettlement from PRM, it notifies an affiliated local resettlement agency, such as Exodus, that it will be receiving the refugee for local resettlement. Exodus has cooperative agreements with two Voluntary Agencies to resettle refugees in Indiana.

Upon receiving a notification of resettlement from a Voluntary Agency, Exodus uses federal funds directly from PRM to perform the work necessary to prepare for the refugees' arrival, such as obtaining and furnishing a place for the refugees to live. Once the refugees arrive, however, Exodus receives federal funds passed through the states—specifically, in Indiana, through FSSA. Exodus uses these federal grant funds to provide employment services to refugees, as well as to pay Exodus staff and administrative costs.

In accordance with its State Plan, Indiana utilizes grants from the federal government—often by passing them on to other entities such as Exodus—to ensure that refugees receive the following services: (1) social services provided by local resettlement agencies, such as cultural integration training, job skills training, and adult English language training; (2) temporary cash assistance paid directly to refugees actively seeking employment; (3) medical assistance for initial health screenings and medical treatment provided by local county health departments and resettlement agencies; (4) existing benefits programs such as Medicaid and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (“SNAP”); and (5) school assistance funds paid to the Indiana Department of Education for schools providing English language instruction to refugee children.

C. The State's Directive and Its Impact

In August 2015, Exodus was notified that a refugee family from Syria had been approved for placement in Indiana, and Exodus was assigned to assist the family with resettlement. Exodus therefore expended time and resources to prepare for this family's...