Since a Tennessee state Senate resolution passed Monday asks - but does not direct - state Attorney General Herbert Slatery to challenge the federal government program dropping Syrian refugees into the state, it would be helpful for Slatery to give legislators his opinion as to whether the 10th Amendment ground on which legislators want to base their lawsuit has any chance of success.
Both Alabama and Texas, in their effort to avoid refugees they don't believe have been properly vetted being sent to their states, filed lawsuits saying the federal government failed to comply with the "consultation clause" of the Refugee Act of 1980.
However, that argument is thought to be weak because the standard required to establish "consultation" is very low.
But Tennessee hopes to go another route with its 10th Amendment claim. The 10th Amendment states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
The Volunteer State, in 2008, formally withdrew from the United States Refugee Resettlement program, so the federal government selected a voluntary agency - Catholic Charities - to operate the resettlement program in the state. But even though it no longer participates in the federal program, the state has to spend tax money without specific approval by the legislature - as required by the Tennessee Constitution - to pay for a number of services delivered to refugees in the state.
One of those services, for instance, is Medicare, which the federal government mandates the state to provide to eligible refugees or risk losing all Medicaid money.
Legislators said Monday state residents - and refugees as well - should be able to appreciate a state that defends its rights, its safety and the happiness of its people. But they said even state Safety Commissioner Bill Gibbons, despite repeated requests, couldn't get from the federal government information on how refugees are vetted before being placed here.
"[W]e need to know about the people being placed in our state," Sen. Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City, said. "We need to know who they are, where they come from and where they are being placed."
Given the volatility of the region from which the refugees would come, it's not unreasonable for the state to have as much information as is legally possible about those it is told to place.
The resolution next goes to the House, so Slatery's opinion on the case's merit is important to have before any determination is made on whether a suit should be filed.