Court Slams Mike Pence’s “Nightmare Speculation” About Syrian Refugees

One of Trump’s Supreme Court picks was on the bench.

<a href="http://www.zumapress.com/zpdtl.html?IMG=20160831_zan_s70_057.jpg&CNT=5">Eve Edelheit</a>/Zuma Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As Mike Pence prepares for the first vice presidential debate on Tuesday, the refugee policy for this Republican governor’s home state of Indiana drew a strong rebuke from a conservative federal appeals court. In an opinion issued on Monday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals slammed Pence’s treatment of Syrian refugees, saying his effort to block their resettlement was based on “no evidence” and constituted “nightmare speculation.” The final decision for the three-member panel was written by Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Also on the bench was Judge Diane Sykes, who was appointed by George W. Bush and was recently named by Trump’s campaign as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

After the Paris terror attacks last November, Pence was one of 31 governors who opposed the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their respective states. In Indiana, Pence declared that state agencies would no longer cover the cost of some key social services for any refugees whose country of origin was listed as Syria on their refugee documents.

“Indiana has a long tradition of opening our arms and homes to refugees from around the world but, as governor, my first responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of all [Indiana residents],” Pence said at the time.

A resettlement agency called Exodus Refugee Immigration sued the state, saying its refusal to help resettle Syrian refugees constituted discrimination based on national origin. According to the court document, 174 Syrian refugees were settled in Indiana in the last fiscal year.

In March, a federal judge blocked Pence’s order, saying his withholding of state resources “clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin.” The case was appealed and brought before a panel of three Republican-appointed judges who upheld the injunction.

In his decision, Judge Posner pointed out there have been no known cases of Syrian refugees being arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts in the United States. In response to Pence’s argument that his policy is not based on national origin discrimination but rather on national security concerns, Posner wrote, “That’s the equivalent of his saying (not that he does say) that he wants to forbid black people to settle in Indiana not because they’re black but because he’s afraid of them, and since race is therefore not his motive he isn’t discriminating. But that, of course, would be racial discrimination, just as his targeting Syrian refugees is discrimination on the basis of nationality.”

Attempts to suspend Syrian refugee resettlement in individual states has not fared well so far. Texas and Alabama both filed lawsuits against the federal government over the placement of Syrian refugees in those states. Both cases were dismissed in federal court and have since been appealed.

Since becoming Trump’s vice presidential pick, Pence has been a supporter of Trump’s proposal to stop accepting Syrian refugees into the country. He told NBC’s Meet the Press that the resettlement program “puts safety and security of the American people second to the agenda of the UN or to liberals in this country.”

One of the judges who oversaw the case was Diane Sykes, who is known for writing a decision restricting women’s access to birth control and defending the right of a Christian student group to exclude LGBT people. She is also a potential Supreme Court pick for Donald Trump.

You can read the full decision here:

 

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate