![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Jacob Gershman, WSJ, Mar. 1, 2016 - "Indiana unconstitutionally discriminated against Syrian refugees by freezing federal funds that were supposed to help fleeing families resettle in the state, a federal judge has ruled. The decision is the latest legal setback for state efforts to resist plans by the Obama administration to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war in that country. According to a lawyer involved, it marks the first time a court has ruled that a state opposing the resettlement process violated the U.S. Constitution. ... U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, in a 35-page ruling, said Indiana’s policy amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of national origin, a violation of the the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights law. She granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits Indiana “from taking any actions to interfere with or attempt to deter the resettlement of Syrian refugees by” the private agency."