Alabama filed a lawsuit against the U.S. federal government on Thursday to stop refugee settlement in the state, saying the Obama administration failed to consult states over the issue.

It is the second state after Texas to sue the government as Syrian refugees have been resettled in various states.

Republican Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is one of several governors, mostly Republicans, who are against the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states following the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris.

Texas earlier filed a lawsuit on the matter to block six Syrian refugees from settling in Dallas.

The Alabama lawsuit states that the federal government has not complied with a portion of the Refugee Act of 1980 on regular consultation with states.

"We are the one who secure the people of this state and protect the people of this state. We need to have the information on refugees as they come in to allow us to do that," Bentley said.

However, Kristi Graunke of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project, said the lawsuit "has no legal merit, and the state of Alabama has no authority under the Constitution to block the settlement of refugees."

However, an expert told WND that the lawsuit has a chance to stop refugee resettlement.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said it is based on the 10th Amendment.

"Thomas More Law Center's position is that there is a constitutional claim and that claim is based on the 10th Amendment," he said.

The U.S. State Department has settled Muslim refugees in 180 U.S. cities and towns. The refugees came from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma and other countries.

The law center has been preparing a case to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government's authority on the refugee programme, which is administered by the State Department along with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement.

According to the 10th Amendment, states are guaranteed certain rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government.

Thompson said even if Alabama and Texas win the cases, the federal government would be allowed to send refugees to states.

"The word 'consultation' is so vague that if federal government calls whatever state representative and says, 'OK, we're going to send 10 refugees to the state of Alabama and they've all been checked out,' and the state says no, it has no impact," he said.

He said "consultation" doesn't mean "agreement," adding that "It just means you have to talk to somebody."

"But under the 10th Amendment we would claim that the Constitution says the federal government in no way has the right to commandeer state funds to fund or promote a federal programme," he said. "And that argument goes to the fact that once the refugee comes into the state, all kinds of state taxpayer money is being used to take care of the welfare of that refugee."