RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0164p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TENNESSEE, by and through the Tennessee ┐ General Assembly, et al., │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │ No. 18-5478 > v. │ │ │ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. No. 1:17-cv-01040—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge. Argued: March 19, 2019 Decided and Filed: July 24, 2019 Before: COLE, Chief Judge; and BOGGS, Circuit Judge.* _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: John J. Bursch, BURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, for Appellants. Samantha L. Chaifetz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Richard Thompson, B. Tyler Brooks, Kate Oliveri, THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellants. Samantha L. Chaifetz, Alisa B. Klein, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Sarah Grusin, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, Carrboro, North Carolina, Cody Wofsy, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae. *After oral argument, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons was unavailable to participate in the panel’s decision. Chief Judge Cole and Judge Boggs act as a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). No. 18-5478 State of Tenn., et al. v. United States Dep’t of State, et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of whether the Tennessee General Assembly (“General Assembly”) has standing to file suit on its own behalf, as well as on behalf of the State of Tennessee. The General Assembly alleged that the federal government violated the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through enacting and implementing certain statutes that require states to provide Medicaid coverage to eligible refugees. The district court dismissed the General Assembly’s complaint for lack of standing. Tennessee v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 329 F. Supp. 3d 597, 616–17 (W.D. Tenn. 2018). Because the General Assembly has not alleged an injury that gives it standing, and because the General Assembly has not established that it has the authority to bring suit on behalf of Tennessee, we affirm the district court’s judgment. STATUTORY BACKGROUND Before turning to the parties’ arguments, we briefly discuss the statutory schemes that are relevant to this case. In 1980, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by passing the Refugee Act, Pub. L. No. 96-121, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) (codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.). The Refugee Act created the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).1 8 U.S.C. § 1521(a). ORR administers the Refugee Resettlement Program. See id. (b). ORR consults with state and local governments and private nonprofit agencies concerning “the sponsorship process and the intended distribution among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A). The parties do not dispute that states cannot prevent the federal government from settling refugees ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals