Court Overturns Trump’s Termination Of Refugee Resettlement Deals

A Seattle federal judge overturns President Trump’s termination of refugee resettlement deals, ordering immediate reinstatement of contracts with agencies aiding refugees despite the administration’s earlier suspension of the program.

Key Takeaways

Judge Jamal Whitehead ruled that terminating agreements with refugee resettlement agencies was unlawful and violated statutory obligations.
The Trump administration must restore funding to refugee agencies despite the January executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
The court determined that the government’s actions caused “irreparable harm” to vulnerable individuals and organizations.
While the administration can suspend approval of new refugees, those conditionally accepted before the suspension must be allowed to enter the U.S.

Judge Blocks Termination of Refugee Resettlement Contracts

A federal judge in Seattle has partially blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to halt funding for refugee admissions, ruling that the termination of contracts with refugee resettlement agencies was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction requiring the administration to reinstate agreements with refugee resettlement agencies that were terminated following President Trump’s January executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

The lawsuit, known as Pacito v. Trump, was filed by several refugee aid organizations, including HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest, along with nine individuals affected by the suspension. These organizations argued that Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s termination of resettlement contracts violated the Refugee Act and undermined the court’s previous rulings on the matter.

Timing of Contract Terminations Questioned

Judge Whitehead specifically questioned the timing of the contract terminations, which occurred just 24 hours after a court had issued an injunction against the refugee ban. In his ruling, the judge emphasized that the government’s actions appeared designed to circumvent judicial oversight and effectively dismantle the refugee program despite congressional authorization. The court determined that while the administration has discretion in managing the refugee program, that discretion “does not extend to abandoning statutory obligations.”

“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,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead.

The government argued that the terminations were merely contract disputes beyond the court’s jurisdiction. However, Judge Whitehead rejected this interpretation, stating, “The Government contends these terminations are mere contract disputes beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, but this argument fundamentally misapprehends the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims.” Instead, the court characterized the issue as a statutory obligation that the administration was attempting to evade.

"Ruling came during a hearing over a lawsuit brought by a group of nonprofits that receive federal funds. The nonprofits provide social services for newly-arrived refugees. A judge issued an injunction ordering the Trump administration to reinstate contracts with the nonprofits." https://t.co/kdAQnqRM6z

— Frankie Crisostomo (@FrancCrist) March 25, 2025

Separate Ruling on Refugee Entry

A separate but related ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed the Trump administration to suspend approval of new refugees entering the country, while requiring that those conditionally approved before the suspension must be permitted to enter. This ruling referenced a 2018 Supreme Court decision that upheld the president’s authority to restrict entry in certain circumstances, affirming some executive power over immigration matters.

“The Jewish community is all-too-familiar with what happens when countries turn their commitments to refugees, and that’s why HIAS will keep fighting in court for the lives and the safety of displaced people around the world,” said Mark Hetfield.

President Trump’s January executive order cited “record levels of migration” and the strain on cities and communities as justification for suspending the refugee program. The order argued that communities were struggling to “absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.” Refugee organizations have reported numerous cases of refugees stranded in dangerous areas, families separated, and canceled travel plans resulting from the suspension.

Impact and Response

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and other refugee advocacy organizations have expressed relief at the court’s decision. Melissa Keaney, Senior Supervising Attorney at IRAP, welcomed the ruling, noting that it would provide “continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States.” The organizations emphasized that the court recognized the “devastating harm” facing both refugees and the agencies that serve them.

The nationwide preliminary injunction remains in place, preventing the government from enforcing the refugee ban and requiring restoration of processing and funding. Judge Whitehead ordered the government to provide updates on efforts to resume refugee processing, recognizing that judicial intervention was necessary “to preserve the separation of powers our Constitution demands.” The case is expected to continue through the courts as the administration and refugee organizations present their full arguments.