Seattle arguments on suspension of refugee aid

Arguments in hearing on withholding refugee aid

A fight over the abrupt withholding of federal dollars for refugee aid is back in court, following a lawsuit against President Trump's executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

SEATTLE - The fight over the abrupt withholding of federal dollars for refugee aid was back in court. The hearing was held in Seattle Wednesday, at the federal courthouse of the Western District of Washington. The hearing follows a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Timeline:

On January 27, the president’s executive order went into effect, suspending all refugee entry into the United States. The order also abruptly suspended millions of federal dollars for admissions agencies and resettlement programs that serve refugees.

A week before the order began, The Trump Administration said, "The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees. This order suspends the USRAP program until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States."

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) filed a lawsuit, Pacito et al v. Trump, with the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit was filed against the executive order on behalf of nine impacted people and refugee advocacy groups that support them. The lawsuit challenges the president’s refugee ban, stating it violates the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Administrator Procedure Act.

In March, a U.S. District Court Judge in Seattle filed a preliminary injunction against the executive order. The IRAP also explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "partially denied the government’s motion to stay the first preliminary injunction," in lawsuit challenging the president’s executive order.

The IRPA further explained, "The court ruled that the injunction will remain in effect for refugees who were conditionally approved as of January 20, 2025 – many of whom were ready to travel to the United States when President Trump suspended the refugee program."

Now, the IRPA and lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case are accusing the defendants, the federal government, of not complying with the court’s injunction order.

"This has turned into a game of whack-a-mole. At each turn, they invent a new strategy to avoid their legal obligations. The effect of this delay on refugees and the organizations that serve them has been devastating," said one attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The representatives with the U.S. Department of Justice, representing the President in the lawsuit, denied the accusations. Representatives said the government was waiting for clarification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to determine the government’s next steps.

"The government strongly disagrees with any suggestion that the government has been out of compliance. The government complies within junctions, and if it believes they are not appropriate, it seeks further review either from the issuing court or from a court of appeals, as may be appropriate," said one representative. "The government swiftly sought the Ninth Circuit’s clarification because we believe that the Ninth Circuit is the court in the best position to interpret its own order. We are hopeful that the court will soon give clarity on this question."

It had been more than a month since the Ninth Circuit and the federal court in Seattle ruled on the injunctions. During Wednesday’s federal court hearing, plaintiffs said the government had made no action to abide by the rules and accused the government of stalling.

"It is clear the defendants do not plan to comply with either preliminary injunction, and conditionally approved refugees will suffer the consequences," said one plaintiff attorney.

"I think plaintiffs would submit that slowing down is not only inappropriate, but it would undermine the order of the Ninth Circuit that we are asking this court to enforce, as well as its own preliminary injunction orders," said a representative of the Ninth Court.

A federal court judge in Seattle said he would decide the next steps in this case by the end of Wednesday.

Regarding the resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the White House wrote, "Within 90 days of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit a report to the President through the Homeland Security Advisor regarding whether resumption of entry of refugees into the United States under the USRAP would be in the interests of the United States, in light of the policies outlined in section 2 of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit further reports every 90 days thereafter until I determine that resumption of the USRAP is in the interests of the United States."

The Source: Information in this story is from the International Refugee Assistance Project, the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice and FOX 13 Seattle reporting.