Trade Secrets in Fashion Law

By Emily Wilk

Trade secrets are a compelling aspect of intellectual property (IP) law.  There are many conditions that must be met to consider a certain piece of information or invention a trade secret, however there is no application to file to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the rights to secure this secret.  Throughout IP law, there is a heavy reliance on the copyrights, trademarks and patent rights that designers attain to protect their ideas and designs from being stolen or copied.  These rights to the protection of their ideas can be easily accessed by a judge to determine whether a defendant has violated a plaintiff’s protections ensured under these laws. However, there is a more complex and intricate process in determining whether a trade secret was stolen or not.

First, consider the definition of a trade secret.  The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) defines it as “information that includes a formula, pattern, technique or process that derives independent economic value that is not commonly ascertainable, and is subject of efforts to uphold its secrecy from other parties.”  To maintain the secrecy of the certain formula, pattern, technique or process, it is vital secure protection through confidentiality agreements.  These non-disclosure agreements ensure the outside party receiving the trade secret, in order to evaluate the inventor’s product, will keep the product information received classified (JOM).  Due to the multiple facets that can encompass a trade secret, there are many different forms of law that can facilitate the implications of a trade secret in their specific area.  

Within the mode of fashion law, many different attributes of information, such as formulas, pricing information, sourcing information and proprietary information technology, are fundamental trade secret protections (The Fashion Counsel).  However, in the world of red soled shoes and cheetah-print handbags, many find it hard to determine the difference between a patented design and a design created by a trade secret.  A patent exclusively demonstrates the product information and process of creation to the public if they wish to access it.  By disclosing this information, a designer ensures that their idea and design will be protected for a number of years, as a limited time monopoly, until the patent license is up, at which point it can either be renewed or expire (USPTO).  Trade secrets fly under the radar, allowing a designer  create a certain designs that, if kept confidential, may be kept forever with no limits or bounds protecting the idea. The secret itself is protecting the idea.

However, one must consider if a designer should designate their idea as a trade secret or a patent.  There is a process called reverse engineering in which other companies can take apart a product, in reverse order of putting it together, to determine the ways in which the product was made (NC State Ethics). When a company utilizes reverse engineering, it is to gain information that is integral to becoming competitive in the design market.  If a company were to apply reverse engineering onto a patented product, it would be illegal because the company that owns the patent has full rights to the creation of the product whether it is done forwards or backwards. In any direction, all of the rights legally belong to the designer who owns the patent.  However, products created by trade secrets are legally allowed to be reverse engineered, which could lead to the discovery of the secret by competing designers.

In a recent case of trade secret theft, Louis Vuitton is suing Coach for the secrets that the ex-Vice President of Louis Vuitton illegally carried over to her new position at Coach.  Joon Ma, the former VP of LV, had violated multiple facets of her contract at Louis Vuitton.  Firstly, Ma transferred confidential Louis Vuitton North America (LVNA) information from her work computer onto external hard drives.  She later deleted all emails pertaining to LVNA to cover her tracks.  Secondly, she violated her non-compete clause in her contract, which states that she may not join the team of a competing designer for six months after her resignation due to the secrets deeply invested in the fashion market. This is primarily concerning to LV because Ma was a valued executive who was always aware of the secrets traveling around the LV headquarters (Racked).

In this case, LV’s trade secrets were misappropriated from the inside and brought to a different company. This case shows that even with the most detailed non-disclosure agreements and contracts, a trade secret does not always remain a secret, especially in the world of fashion where one little expression or tell of secret information can lead to a total unwinding and loss of a designer’s own original idea.  

Current Migrant Crisis: Universal Human Rights?

By Kelli Jones

The past year has seen the largest mass migration since World War II. More than four million Syrians have fled the country since conflict began, often risking their own and their family’s lives in a bid for safety. Given the recent authorization of further air strikes in Syria by the US, France, Russia and now the UK, this number is only set to rise. Under International Law, countries have a legal obligation to accept refugees fleeing persecution and violence, yet the United Nations has accused many of breaking such commitments as their borders appear far from welcoming. Furthermore, even those who are accepted by border controls often face further rights violations by the very countries supposedly offering them sanctuary.

The right to seek and receive asylum is a fundamental provision granted for all individuals in the International Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967. Whilst some have suggested many of the migrants are moving for economic purposes, this is empirically incorrect as the UN Refugee Agency reported that a clear majority of those arriving in the EU in particular, are ‘fleeing from war, conflict or persecution;’ seeking asylum and survival rather than economic or work-related prosperity. Whilst these conditions inevitably evoke a moral obligation, they also evoke a legal one. Internationally, under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and further within Europe under the European Convention of Human Rights 1953, over 150 countries have a legal obligation to accept individuals seeking asylum.

The UN has particularly criticized Australia and the Czech Republic for their border processes, as they appear highly selective in the individuals they are allowing to cross their borders. Screening processes are essential to border control in order to ensure the safety of citizens, but countries appear to be considering the economic and skill level of applicants alongside criminal considerations. When horrific violence and possible death faces those who are not granted asylum, using this information to dictate who is turned away essentially places a higher value on the lives of those more economically prosperous or highly educated. This is both a moral atrocity and a legal undermining of the justification for granting asylum.

The border process in the Czech Republic has reportedly included routine strip-searching and detaining of refugees, including children, for up 90 days in what the UN describes as ‘degrading conditions,’ that the Czech Republic’s Minister of Justice Robert Pelikán described as ‘worse than in a prison.’ The UN Committee on the Rights of Children has deemed the subjection of such standards, for minors in particular, as unjustifiable. The right to challenge this detention is also largely inaccessible to migrants, given the lack of information provided and available to them regarding legal aid. While detained, refugees have even reported being forcibly charged for this detainment, even though the Czech Act on Asylum 1999 states all service and administrative charges for asylum seekers shall be ‘borne by the ministry.’

Australia also has a particularly disturbing refugee record. Even disregarding their international legal obligations, their own Australian Migration Act 1958 defines a refugee as an individual with a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and commits to accept those who fit this criteria. From a practical geographic perspective, many more refugees have sought asylum in the EU than Australia, however, the past months have seen Australian authorities turning boats of refugees back to Indonesia, clearly without the chance of a fair hearing or trial with regards to their migrant status. Countries such as Cambodia, where boats have been redirected to, have consequently criticized Australia, arguing that they already struggle to provide many services for their own people, implying further neglect and lack of responsibility on the part of Australia.

There are also clear discrepancies within Europe, as while Germany has committed to accepting over 800,000 refugees, the UK has pledged to accept just 20,000 over five years. Whilst the EU has the right to determine the distribution of refugees, as long as persecution will not be faced within any of the destinations, the most persuasive benefits of this clearly lie in the economic conditions of member countries, yet this is not dictating distribution. It is ironic that countries such as Greece who have faced serious economic upheaval are among the most readily accepting of refugees, whilst growing economies such as the UK and US are increasingly resistant to their acceptance. Even though discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes towards refugees may be present amongst many countries, the varying rhetoric of governmental institutions undoubtedly contributes to the quantity of individuals accepted, and the views of refugee policy by their respective citizens. The UK government in particular has emphasized its political agenda on immigration overall as it has committed to decrease net migration to the tens of thousands in the coming years, including asylum seekers. In vast contrast, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly refused to set a national limit on the number of refugees that will be accepted into the country, arguing the government cannot place a limit on the constitutionally enshrined right to asylum.

Even for those accepted through border controls however, the conditions for refugees does not appear to drastically improve. Camps within Calais commonly referred to as ‘The Jungle’ contains thousands of refugees, most hoping to enter the UK, living in extremely poor conditions. The NGO Medecines du Monde, recently filed a case against the French Court regarding ‘serious human rights violations’ within The Jungle. The group had initially hoped to gain temporary shelter and daily meals for all refugees, but was only granted water and hygiene provisions for those within the camp. The UN has been clear in stating that, regardless of the status of those entering foreign countries, governments’ have ‘the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction.’ Whilst acting as a vital first step in increasing the standard of living for refugees therefore, the case may also set a significant precedent as the crisis continues, as many countries can be seen to be neglecting their own responsibilities when it comes to upholding international human rights standards.

When considering historical humanitarian atrocities such as the Holocaust, many societies are often horrified when reflecting on the refusal of nations to accept thousands of citizens fleeing the persecution of the Nazi sphere of control. Yet even today, with global institutions such as the United Nations, and international laws such as the Convention for Human Rights, too many refugees fleeing persecution are left stranded, or met within nations they hope to be their sanctuary, with further human rights violations.

The vast majority of those fleeing Syria and neighboring countries are fleeing terror, like the terrorist attacks seen in Paris, that they have endured on a daily basis. Refusal to offer an alternative to this, paired with the planned increase in air strikes, ultimately sees millions of Syrians without a future. If conditions do not drastically improve we can expect a powerful yet horrific precedent both legally and morally within the international environment that we are unlikely to look back on proudly.

SCOTUS to Rule on Rights of Veteran-Owned Businesses

By Brett Mittler

Considering the scandals, allegations of mismanagement and widely condemned disability claims backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in recent years , what would you think if they allocated money to support a business that was not a Veteran-Owned? Timothy Barton, the Chief Executive of Kingdomware Technologies, was angered by just that and decided to take legal action against the VA for awarding a contract to a non-veteran entity. Is Barton right that the VA should have only given these funds to support veterans in their  hopes of achieving the American Dream after serving our nation? Did the VA violate the law? The Supreme Court will rule on these issues in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States.

The question presented is: Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit err in holding that the Veterans Act of 2006, 38 U.S.C. § 8127, allows the Department of Veterans Affairs discretion in deciding whether to award a contract to a veteran-owned business?

This policy has long been a part of the history of the United States to promote small businesses. The legislature has been pushing for more government support for small business owned and operated by veterans. As expressed in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C ch. 14A, which states,  “A fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property and services for the government [should go to Veteran Owned Small Businesses]” 15 U.S.C. . § 644(a)(3). The Small Business Act recognizes both Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). Id. § 632(q).

     

However, the policies and procedure for government contracting is outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. ch 1. When purchasing supplies, all government agencies fall under the guidelines of the umbrella of FAR, which directs them to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The VA was specifically given authority, under 48 C.F.R. § 38.101(d), to award other contract schedules, meaning they do not have to award them to VOSBs. In fact, they are awarded to VOSBs a smaller percentage of the time than they are to regular FSS contracts.

CASE BACKGROUND

Kingdomware Technologies is a company operated by a service-disabled Army veteran, Timothy Barton, in a suburb of Washington, D.C. Kingdomware provides a range of technology information services to both the private and public sector. It has been certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a SDVOSB in 2010 and again in 2012. Barton was wounded during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when the US Military forced Iraq to back out of its invasion of Kuwait.

     

The technology firm has waged this legal battle on the grounds that the VA “shall” award contracts to veteran-owned small businesses and that they have failed to carry out its duty, as outlined in Id. § 8127(d). After winning a series of protests in the Government Accountability Office (GSA), Kingdomware decided to sue when the rulings did not have the impact they were hoping for under the 2006 law.

Moreover, Kingdomware argues that the VA contracting officer violated the “Rule of Two,” as outlined in 15 U.S.C. § 657f, which states that the contracting officer cannot award a contract outside of a VOSB if no fewer than two small business submitted proposals. It would be considered in violation of this well-known rule throughout government in connection with awarding contracts restricted to small businesses.

     

In early 2012, The VA decided that they were going to implement an Emergency Notification Service, and the VA contracting officer chose to use the GSA FSS to procure the needed services. This particular vendor was not a VOSB. The VA argues under this law, they are not obligated to choose only VOSB and that the decision to choose the vendor that they did falls under the discretion of the Secretary of the VA.

DECISION

The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgement without deference. They concluded that Kingdomware’s interpretation of § 8127(d) did not account for the Secretary’s mandatory authority to set the goals for the contracts; therefore, it is an unreasonable assumption that the VA is required to always give a VOSB the right of way and choose them as the contracted entity.

Additionally, the Court ruled that there is no reason to compel the Secretary to set aside any contract for the “Rule of Two” inquiry before using the FSS, as Kingdomware had requested. The court stated that the VA has consistently met its mandatory goals for procurement of SDVOSBs each year since the Veterans act of 2006 went into effect. Furthermore, the Secretary and his officer (“the contracting officer”) had the right to award the contract as they saw fit, as long as they were meeting the goals and mandates set forth. The Department of Veterans Affairs decision was not arbitrary and they did not act contrary to the law.

SCOTUS APPEAL

The Kingdomware case was set to be heard at the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday, November 9th, 2015, but it was pulled from the calendar. The Court issued an order to both parties asking whether the disputed contracts in the case “have been fully performed, and if so, whether the case is moot.” The briefs are to be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Friday, November 20th, 2015. After reviewing these briefs, the court will then decide if the controversy of the case is still live. At this time it is unclear, if the case remains alive, when it would return to the calendar. It is most unusual that the Court decides to remove a case from the calendar once it is set, unless the circumstances in question have found a way to be resolved prior to that date.

The Legal Implications of the Annual Presidential Pardon of Turkeys

By Devon Fitzgerald

Throughout the course of his presidency, Barack Obama has been heavily criticized for his use of executive action on immigration, climate change and other items of his policy agenda. He has also come under fire for his abuse of executive power vested in him by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution -- the presidential pardon.  

Last November, Sen. Ted Cruz published an op-ed in Politico titled “Obama Is Not a Monarch.” Cruz specifically called into question the president’s use of executive amnesty for immigrants, thinking it to be an over-extension of power. (Politico) In 2013, just a year earlier, The Boston Globe published a piece criticizing the president for not using his pardoning power enough, dubbing it, “One of his most effective tools.” (The Boston Globe)

Meanwhile, in the Office of Legal Counsel, the most talked about legal issue of this week is the presidential pardon as it relates to turkeys.

According to the White House, “Americans have been sending the President turkeys for the holidays since at least the 19th century.” (The White House Blog) Turkey Pardoning is rumored to have begun under Lincoln at the request of his son Tad, but the tradition only became official under President George H.W. Bush. On November 14, 1989, Bush pardoned one truly grateful turkey and, since then, the president has pardoned a turkey every year. (CNN.com)

Slate reports: “The Office of Legal Counsel has released a 4,000-page memorandum setting forth the constitutional and statutory justifications for this controversial executive action, rooted largely in the authority granted to him under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Eighth Amendment and also the Perdue Family Farms Charter.” (Slate.com)

The Washington Post plays the buzzkill as well, calling the turkey pardon, “An absurd Thanksgiving ritual.” Despite the variety of “frivolous public events” the Office of the President holds each year, The Washington Post argues, “The turkey pardon stands out as being especially dumb and worth abolishing,” for a few key reasons.

They argue it’s “not a real tradition” because of its somewhat shaky foundation. Presidents pardoning turkeys has, more than once, proved to be a tactic to draw reporters’ attention away from the indiscretions of the office and those who have held it at the time. Fair. But that doesn’t make it any less of a tradition, and if reporters are so swept up by the journalistic winds of presidential turkey pardons that they ignore presidential “indiscretions,” either they not very significant indiscretions, or journalists aren’t very good at their jobs.

They also argue, “The pardoned turkeys aren't that much better off — because the life of a turkey is misery and pain.” Once again - very true. But that is inevitable. We all die, fact of life, especially when we are farm-raised fowl meant for human consumption. The birds, that have been bred for our consumption before they were marked for excellence and shipped off to our nation’s capital, were not bred to live long healthy lives. They were destined for your Thanksgiving table long before they were fated for the Rose Garden.

In this way, their body mass is often too much for their joints to handle. It’s not a natural state of being for a turkey to sustain life at the weight we would like to eat them. Therefore their life expectancy is grim. But this isn’t some big conspiracy to trick the american public into believing these turkeys ride off into the sunset and bathe in the fountain of eternal youth. In fact, I highly doubt the american people expect much of the federal government in regards to the longevity and quality of life of our pardoned turkeys. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on the inner thoughts of the common American turkey, but I would argue even the turkeys themselves are quite content with extending their death-sentence, and living an extra couple months on the Mount Vernon Estate, coming to a slightly more natural and less graphic end. That’s what the pardon is about after all, the potential of a better future, even if it’s a turkey pardon.

The life of any turkey is likely to be miserable and painful anyway. If the presidential pardon means they expire by Easter instead of Thanksgiving, well good for them.

The article goes on to claim “The White House wants us to believe these turkeys are living out a life of leisure on the farm and bopping along to their favorite Lady Gaga tracks […] it's not clear why we need an elaborate White House ceremony designed to obscure where that food actually comes from.”

Quite frankly, in line with my thoughts on the Starbucks cup “controversy,” of all of the government “cover-ups” (both speculated and verified), I think one regarding where turkeys come or go should be the least of our worries.

(Instead, I highly recommend reading the recently declassified documents on the 1953 Iranian Coup -- they’re fascinating and far more important.)

Turkeys have a conservation status label of “Least Concern,” due to an increasing population. And 12 million Syrians (half of whom are children) have fled their homes due to conflict in their country (World Vision). Let’s be thankful this holiday season that we are living in a country, while riddled with problems and atrocities of our own, where we have both the freedom of speech and the physical and emotional security to put this anywhere near our list of outrage and concern.

The president acknowledges these criticisms and addressed them in his remarks during the 2014 pardon:

“The Washington Post recently questioned the wisdom of the whole turkey pardon tradition. ‘Typically on the day before Thanksgiving,’ the story went, ‘the man who makes decisions about wars, virus outbreaks, terrorist cells and other dire matters of state, chooses to pardon a single turkey … plus an alternate.’Tell me about it. It is a little puzzling that I do this every year. (Laughter.) But I will say that I enjoy it because with all the tough stuff that swirls around in this office, it's nice once in awhile just to say: Happy Thanksgiving. And this is a great excuse to do it.” (The White House Press Office)

You can argue whether that’s genuine. And you can make a fuss about that seemingly neutral, innocuous statement if you must. But we don’t have to.

As Magnus Fiskesjö explains in his article titles, “The Thanksgiving Turkey Pardon, the Death of Teddy’s Bear, and the Sovereign Exception of Guantánamo,” the presidential turkey pardon is an ode to something much bigger. “Masquerading as a joke, it is really a symbolic pardoning act which, through public performance, establishes and manifests the sovereign’s position at the helm of the state by highlighting, as an attribute of this position, his power to control matters of life and death.” Fiskesjö also goes so far as to make a statement on “the etymological coincidence of the words ‘executive’ and ‘execution.’” (Fiskesjo)

Although these are some pretty big jumps to make, Mr. Fiskesjo and I can agree on one thing: the tradition is a symbol of something bigger than itself. The presidential turkey pardon is the less-polarizing, G-rated version of a power granted to our commander-in-chief by the document our nation holds most dear.

“The Constitution devotes just a few words in Article II to the president’s right to grant pardons, and no rationale is provided. But the writings of Alexander Hamilton provide a hint as to what the framers had in mind when they decided the president should be able to personally overturn individual sentences and override the law of the land on a case-by-case basis. [...] Presidents used the pardon power routinely for much of American history, often to commute prison sentences, and sometimes to restore citizenship rights to former convicts who were already free. In a paper published in 2010 in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Love explains that pardons sometimes served to differentiate between crimes that the law treated as identical: For instance, before there was such a thing as first- and second-degree murder, presidents would review individual murder cases, and commute the sentences of those individuals who had not premeditated their crimes.” (The Boston Globe)

Some people see this tradition as a mockery of the actual power given to the president by Article II. But I prefer to see it this way: if the leader of the free world is making his decision to exercise an aspect of his executive power based on the social commentary that surrounds a new tradition concerning the fate of fowl -- this country has reached new lows and we should be looking at exercising some other articles of the Constitution to remedy that.

Is the presidential turkey pardon our nation’s most meaningful tradition? No. But it is a tribute, a light-hearted, mildly satiric, annual reminder and celebration of a piece of our country’s history that we do consider a national treasure -- the United States Constitution.

Can Governors Legally Act to Refuse Syrian Refugees?

By Grant Smith

9 million Syrians have fled their country since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. This is a number greater than the entire population of New York City. Since March of 2011, the Syrian Civil War has forced native Syrians to flee everything they know in search of safety. Generally, these refugees go to countries that are not too much more stable than Syria, such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq or Egypt.

This past summer, the refugee crisis topped headlines in both European and American media. President Obama publicly stated that he would be accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, a leap from the 1,500-limit goal stated earlier in the year, but still far short of the 800 thousand Germany offered to accept.[1] The plan generally received widespread, bipartisan support.

After the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and Iraq on November 12th and 13th, support for refugees coming into the United States has dropped dramatically. As of now, 31 governors have specifically requested that the federal government not allow any more Syrian refugees into the country.[2] Some governors have even gone as far as asking for only Christian refugees to be allowed to enter our borders.[3] They expressed fear that these refugees may be sympathetic to or directly working with ISIS or other terrorist groups. While these governors have every right to call on the federal government to stop the inflow of refugees, they are legally obligated to allow refugees into their states.

This is not a new interpretation of federalism. In 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on Fong Yue Ting v. United States. The case focused primarily on Chinese laborers and its result is just as impactful now as it was then. “In Chy Lung v. Freeman, a statute of the State of California restricting the immigration of Chinese persons was held to be unconstitutional and void because it contravened the grant in the Congress of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”[4] Fong Yue Ting made it clear that immigration is not an issue that can be controlled by states.

The federal government, not state governments, regulates immigration. The issue was brought up and discussed once again in the 1941 Supreme Court case Hines v. Davidowitz. The case reaffirmed the federal government’s authority on immigration, naturalization and the deportation of immigrants, which includes refugees.[5] If state governments controlled refugees and immigrants, there would be blatant biases in each state, creating more inequalities for refugees, not just Syrian ones. Hines v. Davidowitz made it clear that states do not have the right to regulate immigration law in our country. Imagine if Arizona’s governor suddenly decided not to accept immigrants from Mexico over fears of drug-related violence. That would be obviously unconstitutional. Just as a state cannot declare war or make treaties with another sovereign nation by itself, a state cannot decide which peoples from foreign countries come into its borders.

The decision in Hines v. Davidowitz was reinforced in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States. The Supreme Court determined once again that the federal government had full authority and responsibility when it comes to immigration within the United States. Justice Kennedy even went as far to say it would be “inappropriate” to send an immigrant back to their homeland if it was “mired in civil war.”[6] It is an accepted fact that was confirmed both in 1941 and 2012 that the power over immigrants is not granted to the states, but the federal government.

One hundred years before the 2012 case, Arizona was involved in another fight regarding immigration in Truax and the Attorney General General of the State of Arizona v. Raich. Although the case was focused mainly on employment, the Court’s opinion sheds light on what might happen if states could control immigration:

“The assertion of an authority to deny to aliens the opportunity of earning a livelihood when lawfully admitted to the State would be tantamount to the assertion of the right to deny them entrance and abode, for in ordinary cases they cannot live where they cannot work… And, if such a policy were permissible, the practical result would be that those lawfully admitted to the country under the authority of the acts of Congress, instead of enjoying in a substantial sense and in their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission, would be segregated in such of the States as chose to offer hospitality."[7]

The Refugee Act of 1980 is a statute that also explicitly gives the federal government, specifically the President, the direct power to make decisions on the admission and allocation of funds for refugees. Refugees are defined as people who cannot return to their home nation or country because of “persecution or well-founded fear or persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”[8] Syrian refugees perfectly fit the statutory definition. Each refugee is on the run because they fear death from ISIS, their repressive government or a stray bomb from one of the many powers involved. The act gives the President the power to decide on the number of refugees to admit in any particular year.

The Federal government clearly has authority over this issue. State governors and their governments may complain all they want, but in the end it is not up to them who is and who is not admitted into the United States or each respective state.

Much has been said about the Emma Lazarus poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and how it relates to the issue of admitting refugees, but it bears repeating. Not far from Ground Zero of the September 11th attacks, the iconic statue features the words, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This is one of the first symbols of America that many refugees and immigrants see coming into our country. Governors refusing refugees are not only failing to uphold the Constitution’s basic rules of federalism, they are violating fundamental American principles. If we do not allow those seeking refuge from the Islamic State into our nation because we are afraid of the Islamic State, then ISIS achieves their main objective of corrupting bedrock American values with terror.

---

[1] Gardiner Harris, David E. Sanger, and David M. Herszehhorn. “Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000”. September 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com (accessed November 18, 2015).

[2] Fantz, Ashely and Ben Brumfield. “More than half the nation’s governors say Syrian refugees not welcome”. CNN, November 19, 2015. http://www.cnn.com (accessed November 19th, 2015)

[3] Zezima, Katie. “Cruz: ‘No meaningful risk’ of Christians committing terrorism”. The Washington Post, November 15, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com (accessed November 18, 2015).

[4] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893).

[5] Hines, Secretary Of Labor and Industry Of Pennsylvania V. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

[6] Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. (2012).

[7] Truax and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

[8] Refugee Act of 1980 (PL 96-212, Mar. 17, 1980).