In 2016, the Barack Obama administration dropped nearly 2,400 refugees into Tennessee and stuck the state with the bill.
State legislators, knowing that's not the way the country's refugee program is supposed to work, sued the federal government.
Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled against the state.
The refugee admissions program is managed in the state by Catholic Charities of Tennessee, but the state claimed it was being forced to take in the refugees or lose nearly $7 billion in Medicaid funds. In other words, it was being blackmailed.
Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, perhaps sensing an ultimate loss in a suit against the then-Democratic president and largely left-leaning federal judiciary, didn't sign on. But the Republican legislature still wanted to make the point and sought outside counsel, though Gov. Bill Haslam wouldn't sign onto the resolution. That was a year ago.
Legislators understandably wanted any and all refugee resettlement stopped until the federal government paid the associated costs.
The 1980 Refugee Act, designed to create a permanent procedure for refugee resettlement, essentially says its Office of Refugee Resettlement is responsible for funding and administering federal programs for resettlement and assistance and must consult with state and local governments about the sponsorship and distribution of refugees.
That's where legislators had their "hey-wait-a-minute" moment. They didn't feel like the state had been given much say in the situation - especially since the state had opted out of the resettlement program - and knew the federal government wasn't coming across with the money - at least up front - to fund it.
They were further flummoxed, as were many Tennesseans, by the rapidity with which the refugees were placed in the Volunteer State. Obama, after all, had said all refugees coming into the country from terrorist-haven Middle East countries would be highly vetted and were unlikely to arrive in the United States for two years.
Surprise!
It is unclear now if the state and its outside counsel will appeal the recent decision, but it was apparent that U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, an appointee of President George W. Bush, didn't like any of the state's arguments.
He said the state had shown no evidence it was on track to lose any Medicaid funds, that the federal government had the discretion to withhold Medicaid funds anyway, that such a lawsuit needed to have been brought by the attorney general or someone he assigns, and that the state knew full well the requirement that it must provide refugees with benefits before receiving federal funding to compensate it.
The refugees, now ensconced in their lives in Tennessee, are like most of the illegal immigrants in the state - likely here to stay.
We would hope in the future there is better cooperation between a president in allowing, and legally limiting, the number of refugees who can be resettled, and a state that is willing to accept them and is in line to receive compensation for their care. It is evident in this case that little of that back-and-forth communication was present.
Tennesseans, after all, are a fair and compassionate people who are willing to accept those who are fleeing from danger but certainly want to be sure they are safe in doing so and don't want to be taken advantage of. We don't believe that's too much to ask.