ON AN unseasonably warm evening in March, three giggling teenage girls wearing the hijab, and one whose dark hair is uncovered, pull out bicycles at a rental station along the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. They race off on the landscaped eight-mile pathway, which winds past the city’s arts institutions and government buildings through patches of green lawn, waterways and public art. The twilight bustle on the trail, the ride-sharing stations for electric cars scattered around downtown and the ethnic mix of people in the streets all contribute to the impression of hospitality among Hoosiers, as Indiana’s people call themselves. The courts are now being asked to determine how widely it should be extended.

Indiana’s Republican governor, Michael Pence, has made it clear that refugees from one mostly Muslim country are not welcome in the state. On November 16th, three days after the terrorist attacks in Paris, Mr Pence suspended the resettlement of Syrian refugees “to ensure the safety and security of all Hoosiers”. As many as 30 other Republican governors (and one Democrat), including those of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan and Texas, subsequently made similar moves. None seemed to question whether their ban on Syrians was lawful or constitutional.

Mr Pence was the first governor to be taken to court over his refugee order by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of Exodus, a local non-profit resettlement agency. On February 29th Tanya Walton Pratt, a federal judge, ruled that Mr Pence’s order to cut federal funds for the resettlement of Syrian refugees in his state was unconstitutional and “clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin”. In her 35-page ruling Ms Walton Pratt referred to the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that no state shall deny any person in its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”, including civil-rights laws.

After the initial bombast of his and the other governors’ announcements, Mr Pence had to confess that he cannot prevent Syrian refugees who have been admitted to America—after at least 18 months, and often much longer, of screening by intelligence agencies—from entering Indiana. Previously, he had withheld the portion of federal funds for the resettlement of Syrian refugees that the state controls; now, after the court ruling, he may not do so any more. If nativism were not so en vogue at the moment, the governor, who wants to be re-elected, might have left the matter there. But Mr Pence announced almost immediately after the judge’s ruling that he had instructed Indiana’s attorney-general to seek an immediate stay and appeal of the court decision. On March 8th the appeal was filed.

Most other governors seem to have quietly dropped the matter of their ban on Syrian refugees. One exception is Texas, where Ken Paxton, the state attorney-general, has filed a lawsuit to block the federal government from resettling Syrian refugees on its territory. In early February a district judge denied Mr Paxton’s request for the second time. Mr Paxton’s office is now “evaluating” what to do next. Until the ruling on the governor’s appeal by a circuit court in Chicago, which is expected in a few months’ time, Mr Pence cannot withhold any funds from Exodus.

Around 80% of the refugees settled in Indiana are Burmese. More than 10,000 of them live in Indianapolis, where they have revived a whole neighbourhood on the south side of the city with small shops and restaurants. The state’s Syrian refugees may be about to perform a similar service—despite the governor’s continuing efforts to stop them.