The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [6] March 5 that President Donald Trump has the power to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, though the court provided some relief to refugees who had already been conditionally approved before the policy was implemented.
The ruling in Pacito v. Trump [6] stated that the president has broad discretion to restrict the entry of non-citizens when it is necessary to protect national interests under federal immigration laws. The court found that the president likely has the legal authority, pursuant to 8 USC § 1182(f) [9], to suspend the entry of non-citizens, including refugees. The statute gives the president the ability to suspend the entry of "all aliens or any class of aliens" whose entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The ruling was partly based on the US Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii [10], which gave the president broad discretion to make immigration decisions.
Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit did affirm the district court's preliminary injunctions in part, particularly in regard to refugees already in the country and domestic organizations aiding refugees. The appellate court concurred with the district court that, while the president is in charge of border control, the executive branch is not at liberty to dismantle domestic programs that Congress has mandated the government to execute. The appellate court ruled that the district court did not err in its findings that the government likely violated the law when it failed to provide refugees with "reception and placement" services. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the government has a mandatory duty under 8 USC § 1522 [11] to provide refugees with the aforementioned services as long as Congress has allocated the funds for the program.
The appellate court also concurred with the district court that the government likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act [12] (APA) when it unilaterally terminated the cooperative agreements with resettlement organizations. The Ninth Circuit held that the government did not provide a "reasoned explanation" for the terminations and did not consider the "serious reliance interests" of refugees and those aiding them who have organized their lives around the aforementioned government contracts.
Refugees and refugee resettlement organizations filed the lawsuit challenging a January 2025 executive order [7] signed by President Trump, which suspended refugee resettlement programs in the United States. The lawsuit, filed in a federal district court in Washington state, won a preliminary injunction requiring the government to continue aspects of the refugee program. The government appealed the decision, stating that the refugee program was within the president’s legal authority.
The dispute may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court if the parties seek further review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.
From JURIST [13], March 6. Used with permission.
