IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN 
SERVICES COMMISSION

§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§   CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
§
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 
§
OF STATE, JOHN KERRY in his 
§
Official Capacity as SECRETARY OF  §
STATE, UNITED STATES 
§
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & 
§
HUMAN SERVICES, 
§
SYLVIA BURWELL, in her Official  §
Capacity as SECRETARY OF 
§
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, §
OFFICE OF REFUGEE 
§
RESETTLEMENT, ROBERT CAREY, §
in his Official Capacity as Director
§
of the OFFICE OF REFUGEE 
§
RESETTLEMENT, and
§
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE
§
COMMITTEE, INC.
§
§
Defendants.
§

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
The   Texas   Health   and   Human   Services   Commission   (“Commission”   or
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 1

 “HHSC”)   seeks   declaratory   and   injunctive   relief   against   the   United   States   of
America, United States Department of State (“State Department”), John Kerry, in
his official capacity as Secretary of State, United States Department of Health and
Human Services (“Department”), Sylvia Burwell in her official capacity as Secretary
of   Health   and   Human   Services,   Office   of   Refugee   Resettlement   (“ORR”),   Robert
Carey,   in   his   official   capacity   as   Director   of   the   Office   of   Refugee   Resettlement
(collectively,   “Federal   Defendants”),   and   International   Rescue   Committee
(“Committee”),   regarding   the   Federal   Defendants   and   Committee’s   actions   in
resettling   refugees   in   Texas   without   consulting   with   Texas   or   working   in   close
cooperation with the Commission as required by federal law and contracts with the
Committee.  
I.

PARTIES

1.                        Plaintiff is the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.   The
Commission   is   the   sole   State   agency   responsible   for   the   development   and
administration of refugee resettlement services in Texas.  For purposes of this suit,
the Commission represents the interests of the State of Texas.
2.                        Defendants   are  the   United   States   of   America,   United   States
Department   of   State,   John   Kerry,   in   his   official   capacity   as   Secretary   of   State,
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell in her
official   capacity   as   Secretary   of   Health   and   Human   Services,   Office   of   Refugee
Resettlement,   Robert   Carey,   in   his   official   capacity   as   Director   of   the   Office   of
Refugee   Resettlement,   and   International   Rescue   Committee  the   International
Rescue Committee, Inc. 
II.
3.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
suit   concerns   breach   of  a   statutory   requirement   under   8   U.S.C.   § 1522   that   the
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 2

 federal   government   “consult   regularly”   with   States   concerning   “the   intended
distribution   of   refugees   among   the   States   . . .   before   their   placement   in   those
States”   and   that   local   voluntary   agency   activities   should   be   conducted   “in   close
cooperation and advance consultation” with State governments. 
4.

The   Plaintiff’s   claims   for   declaratory   and   injunctive   relief   are
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 

5.

Venue   is   proper   under   28   U.S.C.   § 1391(b)(2)   because   a   substantial
part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in the Northern District of
Texas.
III.

6.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Texas accepts approximately 10 percent of all refugees resettled in the
United   States––more   than   any   other   State.     Texas   performs   this   work   by
partnering with local volunteer agencies to help refugees transition to the State and
pay for associated costs.

7.

The Refugee Act of 1980 establishes a framework for collaboration and
cooperation among the federal government, the States, and local volunteer agencies
such as the Committee in resettling refugees.  Highlighting the role of the States is
the fact that section 1522 mentions States 14 times.   Instead of adhering to that
statutory framework, the federal government and the Committee have left Texas
uninformed   about   refugees   that   could   well   pose   a   security   risk   to   Texans   and
without any say in the process of resettling these refugees.

8.

The Refugee Act of 1980 requires that the federal government “shall
consult regularly  (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments
and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and
the  intended distribution  of  refugees among  the States  and localities  before their
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 3

 placement   in   those   States  and   localities.”     8   U.S.C.   § 1522(a)(2)(A)   (emphases
added).
9.

The Act further requires that, “in providing refugee assistance . . . local
voluntary agency activities should be conducted in  close cooperation and advance
consultation with State  and local governments.”   Id.  § 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis
added).  

10.

In addition to Texas undertaking more than its share in the task of
resettling  refugees  than any other State, Texas  has the sovereign authority and
duty to protect the safety of its residents.   See, e.g., State v. Richards, 301 S.W.2d
597, 602 (Tex. 1957) (“As a general rule the [police] power is commensurate with,
but does not exceed, the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their
health,   safety,   comfort   and   convenience   . . . .”);  Lombardo   v.   City   of   Dallas,   73
S.W.2d 475, 479 (Tex. 1934) (“[T]he police power of a state embraces regulations
designed to . . . promote the public health, the public morals, or the public safety.”).
The Texas Legislature established the Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs in
the Commission to “ensure coordination of public and private resources in refugee
resettlement.”  TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 752.001, .003.  

11.

As   a   baseline   protection   for   such   authority,   federal   law   excludes
refugees who have provided material support to terrorists.  8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B).
Previously, the President admitted less than 100 Syrian refugees per year.   The
President announced a policy goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal
year.     To   accomplish   this   goal,   the   President   granted   a   waiver   to   refugees   who
provided   material   support   to   terrorists   if,   among   other   things,   the   support   was
“insignificant” and the refugee “poses no danger to the safety and security of the
United   States.”     Exercise   of   Authority   Under   Section   212(d)(3)(B)(i)   of   the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 6913 (Feb. 5, 2014).  
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 4

 12.

Members   of   the   federal   executive   branch   have   expressed   concern
regarding this massive expansion of refugees from an area engulfed in fighting with
ISIS.  For example, the Director of the FBI recently told Congress that the federal
government cannot conduct effective security checks on Syrian nationals.  Director
Comey testified that “we can query our databases until the cows come home but
nothing will show up because we have no record of that person.”   U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, Nation’s Top Security Officials’
Concerns   on   Refugee   Vetting 

(Nov.   19,   2015),

 available   at

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations­top­security­officials­concerns­on­refugee­
vetting/.    The Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division explained
his “concern is in Syria, the lack of our footprint on the ground in Syria, that the
databases   won’t   have   information   we   need.     So   it’s   not   that   we   have   a   lack   of
process, it’s that there is a lack of information.”   U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary,  Goodlatte: Why Does the President Ignore Concerns
About

 

Syrian

 

Refugees? 

(Oct.

 

27,

 

2015),

 available

 

at

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press­releases?ID=E0715056­77F0­4D8F­
BA14­0FB1C1C4F7B4.     The   Director   of   National   Intelligence   summed   up   the
worries of these federal counterterrorism experts: “We don’t obviously put it past
the   likes   of   ISIL   to   infiltrate   operatives   among   these   refugees.”    Nation’s   Top
Security Officials’ Concerns on Refugee Vetting, supra.   
13.

In   light   of   these   concerns   with   the   federal   government   massively
expanding the admission of refugees who have materially supported terrorists, the
Commission sent a letter to the Committee on November 19 asking it to apprise the
Commission if it currently had plans to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas and that
Texas, until further notice, will refuse to cooperate with the resettlement of any
Syrian refugees in Texas.   See  Ex. A.   The letter copied the Director of the Texas
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 5

 Department of Public Safety and the Deputy Director for Homeland Security and
Services in the Department of Public Safety.  Id.  
14.

In   a   phone   call   between   the   staff   for   the   Committee   and   the
Commission, the Committee informed the Commission that it intends to resettle six
Syrian refugees in Dallas, Texas on Friday, December 4.  

15.

Some news inquiries have questioned whether this resettlement could
occur as early as Thursday, December 3.   The Commission requested information
regarding these refugees.   The Committee responded that  the State Department
informed it that the request must go through the State Department because the
information  is   not   shareable  by  the  Committee.    The  Commission  requested  the
information   in   expedited   fashion   from   the   appropriate   federal   entity   under   the
State Department on December 1.  Ex. B.

16.

A   letter   from   the   Executive   Commissioner   to   the   Committee   on
November 25 asked the Committee to contact the Commission by November 30 in
order to work together in close cooperation and avoid termination of the contract or
legal action.  Ex. C.  The Committee responded on November 30 and expressed an
intent to communicate with the Commission.  Ex. D.  

17.

In a letter to the Committee on December 1, the Commission asked the
Committee to temporarily halt resettlement of Syrian refugees in Texas “until we
have receive the requested information and our concerns with screening procedures
have been appropriately addressed.”   Ex. H.   The letter asked the Committee to
confirm   by   3pm   on   December   2   its   intent   to   cooperate   with   the   State.     The
Committee   responded   with   its   intention   to   continue   working   with   the   federal
government to resettle Syrians in Texas.  Ex. I.
IV.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

 COUNT  I
Declaratory Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201­2202 that
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 6

 the Federal Defendants Have Failed to Consult Regularly with Texas
Regarding the Intended Distribution of Refugees to Texas Before
Placement in Texas 
18.

The Commission incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein.

19.

The Refugee Act of 1980 requires that the federal government “shall
consult regularly  (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments
and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and
the  intended distribution  of  refugees among  the States  and localities  before their
placement   in   those   States  and   localities.”     8   U.S.C.   § 1522(a)(2)(A)   (emphases
added).

20.

The Federal Defendants have breached this statutory duty of advance
consultation with Texas by: 1) preventing Texas from receiving vital information to
assess   the   security   risk   posed   by   the   refugees   in   advance   of   their   arrival,   and
2) refusing to consult with the State in advance on placement of refugees in Texas.
 COUNT I I
Declaratory Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201­2202 that
the Committee Has Failed Breached a Contractual Duty to Work in Close
Cooperation and Advance Consultation with Texas Before Placing
Refugees in Texas 

21.

The Commission incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 20 as if fully set forth herein.

22.

The Refugee Act of 1980 requires that, “in providing refugee assistance
. . . local voluntary agency activities should be conducted in  close cooperation and
advance consultation with State  and local governments.”   8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(B)
(iii) (emphasis added).  

23.

The Committee is a local volunteer agency under the meaning of the
Refuge Act of 1980.  

24.

The   Commission   entered   into   an   agreement   with   the   Committee   to
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 7

 provide   for   refugee   cash   assistance,   Ex.   A   at   11   (hereinafter   “Refugee   Cash
Assistance Agreement”) and an agreement to provide for refugee social services, Ex.
B  at  11 (hereinafter  “Refugee  Social  Services  Agreement”).   Both  contracts  were
entered into for good and valuable consideration.
25.

Both   contracts   require   the   Committee  to   “[p]rovide   services   . . .   [i]n
compliance   with   this   contract   and   with   applicable   Federal   laws   and   regulation,
state   laws   and   regulations,   and   Commission   policies   including   service   delivery
standards.”  Ex. J at 5; Ex. K at 5.  This necessarily includes the requirement in the
Refugee Act of 1980 that the Committee work “in close cooperation and advance
consultation” with the Commission.  8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii).  

26.

The   Committee   announced   its   intent   to   continue   to   work   with   the
federal government to resettle Syrians in Texas and is following instructions from
the Federal Defendants to not provide information to the Commission or consult
with the Commission in advance of resettling Syrian refugees in Texas.

27.

Additionally, according to the cooperation clause in the contracts:
The [Committee] must cooperate fully and allow [the Commission] and all
appropriate   federal   and   state   agencies   or   their   representative’s   access   to
client   records,   books,   and   supporting   documents   pertaining   to   services
provided.   [The Committee] must make documents available at reasonable
times and for reasonable periods for the purpose of inspection, monitoring,
auditing, or evaluating.
Ex. J at 1; Ex. K at 11.  This Committee’s conduct is a failure to adhere to this
contractual requirement that prevents the State from exercising its police power to
protect the safety of its residents.

28.

Pursuant   to   the   Commission’s   Uniform   Terms   and   Conditions,
incorporated into the contracts by reference, Ex. J at 7; Ex. K at 7, the Committee: 
acknowledges that, if [it] breaches (or attempts or threatens to
breach)   its   obligations   under   this   Agreement,  the   State   will   be
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 8

 irreparably harmed. . . .  If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that
[the Committee] breached (or attempted or threatened to breach) any
such obligations, [the Committee] agrees that any additional findings
of irreparable injury or other conditions to injunctive relief, it will not
oppose   the   entry   of   an   appropriate   order   compelling   performance  by
[the   Committee]   and   restraining   it   from   any   further   breaches   (or
attempted or threatened breaches).
Ex. L at 22 (emphases added).
29.

Accordingly,   the   Committee   has   admitted   that   its   actions   at   the
instruction   of   the   Federal   Defendants,   if   the   actions   fail   to   comply   with   the
contracts, will cause the State irreparable harm and the appropriate remedy is an
order   from   the   Court   compelling   the   Committee   work   “in   close   cooperation   and
advance   consultation”   with   the   Commission   on   the   resettlement   of   any   Syrian
refugees and to share its information that the Commission has requested and may
request in the future.

30.

All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. 
V. 

1.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The   Commission   seeks   a  temporary   restraining   order   and   a

preliminary   injunction   pursuant   to   Federal   Rule   of   Civil   Procedure   65.     In
particular, the Commission requests the Court to preliminarily enjoin and/or stay
any and all activities of the Defendants regarding placement of Syrian refugees in
Texas unless and until the Defendants have complied with their aforementioned
statutory and contractual obligations of consulting with Texas before placement and
sharing   information   and   working   in   close   cooperation   and   advance   consultation
with the Commission.
2.

The  Commission  also seeks   to  preserve  the status   quo pending  this
Court’s   final   adjudication   on   declaratory   judgment   claims,   the   status   quo   being
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 9

 that,   at   present,   the   aforementioned   refugees   have   yet   to   enter   or   establish
residency   in   the   State   of   Texas.     Given   the   Defendants’   lack   of   providing   basic
information regarding refugees to be placed in Texas, the Commission maintains a
reasonable   concern   that   the   Committee   may   continue   to   operate   with   an
unwillingness to consult in advance regarding placement of refugees in Texas or
share information, closely cooperate, and consult in advance with the Commission.
3.

The requirements for showing entitlement to a temporary restraining
order   and   preliminary   injunction   under   Federal   Rule   of   Civil   Procedure   65   are
identical.   See Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).   To obtain a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, the Commission must
show:
A. there is a substantial likelihood that the Commission will prevail on the 
merits;
B. there is a substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the 
injunction is not granted; 
C. the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the Defendants; and 
D. granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. 
Janvey   v.   Alguire,  647   F.3d  585,  595   (5th   Cir.  2011);  Canal   Auth.   of  Florida   v.
Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). 
A.

4.

There is a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail.
For  the  reasons   articulated  in  the Original   Complaint,  Plaintiff  has

demonstrated   Defendants’   breach   of   statutory   and   contractual   duties   by   their
unwillingness to consult in advance regarding placement of refugees in Texas or
share information and closely cooperate with the Commission.  Whatever “advance
consultation” and “close cooperation” mean, this is not it.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 10

 5.

Further, the right of the Plaintiff to seek relief in this Court due to the
failure   of   performance   by   the   Committee   is   expressly   provided   in   the   contract
between the parties.
B.

There is a substantial threat that irreparable injury will result.

6. On   or   about   Thursday,   December   3   or   Friday,   December   4,   a   group   of   Syrian
refugees are scheduled to arrive in Texas.   Plans for the settlement of additional
refugees may be underway.   As mentioned herein, Plaintiff possesses reasonable
concerns   about   the   safety   and   security   of   the   citizenry   of   the   State   of   Texas
regarding these refugees that may seek resettlement within the State of Texas.  The
safety and security of the citizenry is the rightful concern of the sovereign and one
of the many reasons why Plaintiff maintains an ongoing right to full cooperation,
communication, collaboration, and candor with Defendants regarding its efforts in
resettling foreign nationals amongst the Texas citizenry.
C. 
7.

The threatened injury to Plaintiff and the State’s citizenry
outweighs any threatened harm to Defendants.
As stated above, Plaintiff has reasonable concerns about the safety and

security of the State’s citizens as a result of this week’s anticipated resettlement of
certain refugees.  Plaintiff also is concerned that Defendants will continue refusing
to consult in advance and to share information and work in close cooperation with
Plaintiff as it pertains to the resettlement of refugees in the State, thus causing
further injury.
8.

The threatened harm to Plaintiff outweighs any harm to Defendants
from   a   temporary   halt   of   certain   refugees   pending   a   determination   of   whether
Defendants   are   complying   with   their   statutory   and   contractual   obligations   to
consult in advance with the State on the resettlement of refugees in the State.   

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 11

 E. A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction 
will not disserve the public interest.  
9.

A TRO and a preliminary injunction would allow Texas to exercise its
sovereign authority and duty to protect the safety of its residents, thus serving the
public interest.  

10.

Granting the preliminary injunction will maintain the status quo until
the rights and duties of the parties can be finally adjudicated.

V.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Commission respectfully petitions the Court to award the following relief
against the Defendants: 
A. An ex parte Temporary Restraining Order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b) preventing the Defendants from resettling refugees to
Texas   until   December  9   due   to   their   violations   of  statutory   duty   to
consult   with   the   State   in   advance   of   placing   refugees   in   Texas   and
statutory   and   contractual   duty   to   provide   information   to   the
Commission and work in close cooperation with the Commission;
B. A   hearing   on   the   Motion   for   Preliminary   Injunction   no   later   than
December 9.
C. A   Preliminary   Injunction   preventing   the   Defendants   from   resettling
Syrian refugees to Texas until the Court determines that Defendants
are complying with their statutory and contractual duties to consult
with Texas in advance of placing refugees and to provide information
to the Commission and work in close cooperation with the Commission;
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 12

 D. A declaration that the Defendants have breached their statutory and
contractual duties to the State;
E. A   permanent   injunction   compelling   the   Defendants   to   comply   with
their statutory and contractual duties to the State;
F. Reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees for the Plaintiff; and
G. Such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff is justly entitled at
law and in equity. 

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 13

 Dated:

December 2, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General
BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal
  Counsel
/s/ Austin R. Nimocks
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS
Associate Deputy Attorney General for 
  Special Litigation
Texas Bar No. 24002695
ANGELA V. COLMENERO
Division Chief – General Litigation
ADAM N. BITTER
Assistant Attorney General
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711­2548
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

 

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 14