Trump urges Ninth Circuit to halt refugee admissions, defund resettlement program

PASADENA, Calif. (CN) — The Trump administration asked a Ninth Circuit panel of judges Wednesday to allow restrictions on immigrant travel to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

During oral arguments, the White House asked the panel to reverse a lower court’s “sweeping, universal injunction” blocking an executive order that shuttered the refugee resettlement program, which has been partially revived by a series of court rulings over the last few months.

“The president is actively trying to reduce the burdens of the massive immigration over the last four years by reducing the numbers of admissions but also increasing enforcement on those who are already here,” said Tiberius Davis, a Justice Department lawyer who represented the White House.

After taking office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14163, titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” which suspended all “entry into the United States of refugees” under USRAP starting Jan. 27.

The move dismantled the program’s infrastructure, halting admissions, stranding applicants mid-process and cutting off funding to resettlement groups that provide services like housing and job search assistance.

The White House also challenged arguments from the refugees bringing the lawsuit, insisting that its actions neither violated the Refugee Act of 1980 nor counted as a “permanent” suspension on immigration, as opponents claim.

The president, Davis noted, would still need to review and reauthorize the decision every 90 days to comply with relevant laws.

The government said its position was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii , which held that the president didn’t have to set a specific date or timeline with respect to vetting countries’ citizens for entry to the United States.

Davis said that “it’s sort of up to the president” to determine whether those vetting requirements are met or not.

However, the assertion that Trump didn’t need a time limit on his decision drew suspicion from the panel, especially as to whether his decision amounted to an arbitrary, indefinite stay on refugee admissions.

“And if the president has no intention of reauthorizing it, then why wouldn’t we consider that to be a cancellation of the refugee program?” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, asked.

The panel also recognized that that the program’s immigration process often took “three to four” years to admit people, and that immediately suspending admissions could back up the system by several years.

“So why wouldn’t we want these people to be processed now against the possibility that this administration or a future administration would resume the program?” Bybee asked.

Meanwhile, the refugees and aid groups behind the class action asked the court to remove the stays on several elements of the lower court ruling, allowing them to take full effect.

The refugees argued that Trump’s executive order violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Refugee Act in 1980 and the will of Congress, which established the Refugee Act to create a “permanent” and “systematic procedure” for admitting refugees and facilitating their resettlement.

“The executive order overrides the Refugee Act and flips Congress’s scheme on its head,” Linda Evarts of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which represented the refugees, told the court.

However, the panel indicated that it may side with the government when it comes to questions of executive deference.

“I don’t see how the president doesn’t have authority to suspend this,” Bybee noted. “It may be awful policy, but it doesn’t strike me that it’s unlawful.”

The panel noted that if it totally reversed the injunction on all bases, no further resettlement services from the program would be provided to refugees in the U.S.

The panel took the matter under submission and did not indicate when it would issue a ruling.

In a statement issued after the hearing, the refugees renewed their commitment to the lawsuit.

“Our argument in front of the court today was clear: This illegal and indefinite suspension continues to cause daily, irreparable harm, and the injunctions should be given full force immediately. Every day that the refugee ban remains in place, families are separated and lives are at risk,” Evarts said.

An attorney for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The panel of judges was rounded out by U.S. Circuit Judges Kenneth K. Lee, a Trump appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee who appeared via Zoom.

The legal battle between the Trump administration and the refugees and aid groups who sued over the day-one shutdown of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or USRAP, has taken several turns as the court continues to grapple with the executive branch.

The plaintiffs — nine refugees, their sponsors and domestic nonprofits associated with the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program — filed the class action in February following an executive order by Trump. They are seeking an injunction barring the government from applying the policy to all refugees covered under their proposed class certification.

One plaintiff, identified as “Pacito,” has drawn particular interest from both the district and appeals courts.

Pacito, an anonymous refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, had previously been approved for resettlement in the U.S. before Trump’s order and was scheduled to travel to the U.S. with his family on Jan. 22. Along with his wife and infant son, he sold his belongings and gave up the lease on his home in Kenya.

However, on Jan. 21, after Trump signed the executive order targeting the admissions program, their travel was abruptly canceled, and Pacito was forced to shelter with his family in the parking lot of the American embassy in Nairobi.

Congress established the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program through the 1980 Refugee Act, which outlines the process for admitting and resettling refugees. The legislation grants the president the authority to set the annual refugee cap, and in late 2024, former President Joe Biden set the cap at 125,000 for fiscal year 2025.

In a bench ruling that elicited a gasp and claps from a packed courtroom in February, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead sided with plaintiff refugees and aid organizations, granting them a preliminary injunction.

However, after a series of appeals to the Ninth Circuit, the preliminary injunction was narrowed to cover only about half of the refugees who met specific circumstances, and later narrowed even further.