The lawsuit, filed by faith groups and the International Refugee Assistance Project, highlighted the suffering of refugees stranded overseas, including those from Iraq, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan, and the financial strain on resettlement agencies forced to lay off staff.
Washington state judge blocks Trump administration suspension of refugee program
by Ariana Figueroa, Ohio Capital Journal
February 25, 2025
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington state Tuesday granted a nationwide injunction requested by faith groups challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, as well as the administration’s withholding of funds appropriated by Congress for those services.
District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said that while the president has the discretion to suspend entry to refugees, “that authority is not limitless.”
“I cannot ignore Congress’ detailed framework for refugee admissions and the limits it places on the president’s ability to suspend the same,” Whitehead said. “The evidence before me shows that plaintiffs face concrete, irreparable harms, including refugees stranded after selling their possessions, agencies laying off hundreds of staff and family reunification suspended indefinitely.”
Refugees who are plaintiffs in the suit include a family of three in Iraq; another family of three from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; a mother trying to be reunited with her daughter, who’s in South Africa; a mother and son from Iraq waiting for resettlement from Jordan; and a man from Afghanistan, among others.
Whitehead, whom President Joe Biden appointed in 2023, said he would issue a more detailed order, and added that those who brought the suit against the Trump administration are “likely to show that the president’s suspension of the U.S. (Refugee Admissions Program) has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will.”
Trump order on refugees, funding
The executive order that Trump signed on his first day in office suspended all refugee admission and processing, as well as funding for organizations that handle resettlement in the United States.
The order directed officials at the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to submit a report every 90 days to the White House. The president then will determine whether refugee resettlement is “in the interests of the United States.”
Whitehead raised issues with the implementation of the executive order, “which likely violates bedrock principles of administrative law by vastly expanding the scope of the order with no reason(able) explanation, no advance notice and no (Administrative Procedure Act) compliant procedure.”
August Flentje, who argued on behalf of the Department of Justice, asked Whitehead for a stay while the government seeks an emergency appeal. That appeal would go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The International Refugee Assistance Project filed the lawsuit on behalf of faith groups Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Lutheran Community Services Northwest, as well as refugees who had their resettlement flights canceled, a local refugee sponsor and families trying to reunite.
Immediate harm argued
Deepa Alagesan, the litigator on the case for the International Refugee Assistance Project, argued that the executive order caused immediate harm for the religious groups in the suit and called the impact of the funding suspension “catastrophic.”
Alagesan said the groups have had to lay off staff, end local partnerships and “face the prospect of shutting their doors.”
Flentje argued that those groups had government contracts and a “contract dispute does not make out irreparable harm and should be resolved based on the terms of the contract.”
Whitehead asked if funding from an already approved contract was withheld.
Flentje said he didn’t know the full details and pointed out that the groups did not provide copies of their contracts to the Justice Department.
Alagesan said the suspension of the refugee services went far beyond the executive order.
“It involved the cancellation of travel before the executive order took effect, which has left refugees, including plaintiffs, stranded, totally in limbo,” she said.
She said that irreparable harm had been done to her clients.
Flentje pushed back on that argument.
He said that in the refugee program, refugees are usually “moved to a third safe location well before there’s any refugee determination.”
He argued that other than one plaintiff group, a family of three in Iraq, most of the refugees “have moved out of the areas where they face persecution.”
“The plaintiff in Iraq has lived there for about 16 years since the allegations of persecution … that he identified in the declaration, and State Department reports of current conditions in Iraq don’t support the notion that there is the kind of irreparable harm alleged in that declaration,” Flentje said.
According to the complaint, that plaintiff “lives under threat in Iraq with his wife and three-year-old child because of his association with the U.S. presence in that country and his membership in a persecuted ethno- religious minority.”
The family’s flight was scheduled to leave on Feb. 3, but was canceled.
Whitehead asked if Flentje agreed that irreparable harm had been done.
“In the record that’s been put before the court, I have refugees stranded in dangerous places. I have families who sold everything they owned in advance of travel that was abruptly canceled. I’ve got spouses and children separated indefinitely from their refugee family members in the U.S. I see resettlement agencies that have already laid off hundreds of staff and face potential insolvency,” Whitehead said.
He asked Flentje if those are not “textbook examples of harm.”
Flentje said the harms need to be separated out, among the nine plaintiffs and three organizations. He then added that if the court determines there is harm, it should only limit the injunction to those who brought the suit.
“I think again, if there’s relief based on that individual harm, it has to go to only those individuals who have made out a case for irreparable harm,” he said.
Refugee Act conflict with Trump order
Alagesan argued that the executive order and suspension of funding conflict with the Refugee Act passed by Congress.
The Refugee Act establishes caps on the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. The number of refugees allowed for fiscal year 2025 is 125,000, and so far 44,000 refugees have been resettled into the U.S.
“Congress has already said that it is in the national interest to provide a permanent system for the resettlement of people who face persecution in their home countries pursuant to the systematic procedures the (Refugee) Act outlines,” she said.
Alagesan said that while the president has the broad authority to suspend certain refugee entries, “Congress has specifically provided for consideration of these topics, and the executive order attempts an end run around Congress’ plan.”
“(The Refugee Act) exempts refugees from specific grounds of inadmissibility, including that they might be a public charge to the U.S.,” she said. “And both in its stated purpose and its statutory provisions provides for a detailed system for their distribution around the U.S. and their integration into U.S. society.”
Last updated 4:08 p.m., Feb. 25, 2025
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.
