Ninth Circuit grants partial reprieve to refugees Trump wants out

SEATTLE (CN) — The Trump administration's effort to shutter the refugee resettlement program, even after a federal court handed down a preliminary injunction, hit both a roadblock and a green light as a federal judge in Seattle issued a second preliminary injunction on Monday ordering the government to reinstate its contracts with refugee agencies while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the court’s earlier one on Tuesday.

In a brief order filed Tuesday, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s motion to stay the lower court’s Feb. 28 preliminary injunction, except as it applies to people conditionally approved for refugee status before Jan. 20.

The appeals court reasoned that President Donald Trump’s executive order, titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program," didn’t include a directive to revoke the refugee status of people who received that status before the executive order was issued.

The order specifically addresses the first preliminary injunction, which barred the government from implementing or enforcing the executive order.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision sharply contrasts with the federal court’s reasoning, which on Friday denied the government’s bid to pause the preliminary injunction while it appealed.

On Monday, the federal court in Seattle reiterated the limits of the government’s authority in issuing the second preliminary injunction.

“While the government enjoys significant discretion in administering USRAP, that discretion does not extend to abandoning statutory obligations or rendering the program effectively inoperative,” the judge wrote.

In his 37-page order, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead ordered the White House to reinstate all cooperative agreements previously terminated by the executive order and further forbade the government from enforcing the previously ordered funding terminations.

The judge said the White House’s sudden termination of decades-old agreements without reasoned explanation likely constitutes arbitrary and capricious action that cannot stand.

“The court recognizes that such relief is extraordinary but concludes it is necessary to prevent permanent damage and preserve the status quo while the parties litigate the merits of this lawsuit,” Whitehead said.

The case centers around the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which is an association of federal agencies and nonprofit organizations that work together to identify qualified refugees, admit them to the U.S. and then assist them with resettlement.

In January 2025, Trump signed the “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program" executive order, which effectively dismantled the program’s infrastructure, and refugee admissions to the U.S. have come to a halt, leaving some refugees in the middle of the process stranded and organizations that help resettle refugees without funding. 

In February, the Joe Biden-appointed judge granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs — three faith-based refugee assistance agencies and nine individual plaintiffs who argue the suspension of the contracts violates Congress’ authority to make immigration laws.

But in the hours following the judge’s February order, which prevented the enforcement of Executive Order 14163, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began terminating every resettlement agency cooperative agreement for domestic reception and placement services and all but one agreement for processing support abroad.

The government claims the terminations resulted from reviews that the Department of State began on Feb. 21, 2025, at Rubio’s direction. Rubio only offered a single rationale for the terminations: the agreements “no longer effectuate agency priorities.”

The judge issued his newest ruling to reverse Rubio’s actions, which he said threaten to make the first injunction “ineffective.”

The State Department defended its right to unilaterally terminate the cooperative agreements because no law required it to enter into the agreements in the first place.

However, Whitehead stated that under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must invalidate agency actions found to be arbitrary or capricious. Thus, because the State Department didn’t provide facts backing up its termination decisions, the judge said he was well within his rights to invalidate the terminations.

The judge also stated that the refugees were likely to suffer irreparable harms without a further injunction, citing their inability to access the refugee program, the prolonged separation of refugee families, the inability of the resettlement agencies to perform their core functions and the various cash-based crises the agencies experienced because of their sudden lack of funding.

The judge ordered the government's attorneys to submit a status report detailing their efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction by March 31, 2025.