Pacito v. Trump (Suspension of Refugee Resettlement Program) - District Court

[ARCHIVED - September 2025]

Three national and local organizations serving refugees— Church World Service (“CWS”), HIAS, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest (“LCSNW”)—and nine individual plaintiffs challenged President Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. refugee resettlement program (“USRAP”), effectively barring entry for all refugees and suspending decisions on refugee applications for an indefinite period of time, as well as efforts to suspend the State Department’s funding to resettlement partners for refugee processing and services. These efforts follow a similar trajectory to when the first Trump administration engaged in similar actions in suspending refugee admissions for refugees from Muslim-majority countries in 2017.

Plaintiffs argue that the executive order and its implementation are unlawful and violate the statutory authority set by Congress, and that the State Department’s stop-work orders violate basic regulatory requirements.

On February 25, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking both the funding suspension and the broader suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Defendants appealed that decision and also asked the court of appeals to stay (pause) the decision's effect while the parties litigate the appeal. On April 11, 2025, Judge Whitehead granted Plaintiffs' motion to enforce this preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint and filed a new motion for preliminary injunction to challenge a new round of notices sent by the administration terminating all ten U.S.-based resettlement agencies’ cooperative service agreements for USRAP processing services, effectively defunding USRAP. Plaintiffs also moved to certify a class of individuals adversely affected by the government’s actions defunding USRAP. The  motion for a preliminary injunction was granted on March 24, 2025. Defendants appealed that decision (and asked for another stay pending appeal) as well.

The Court of Appeals issued a decision on the Defendants’ first stay request on March 25, 2025, narrowing the category of refugees protected by the district court’s preliminary injunction to those individuals with approved refugee applications who had been “conditionally approved” for travel to the United States and had made “confirmable travel plans to the United States.” The district court subsequently ordered briefing and heard arguments from the parties on an appropriate compliance framework for the court’s injunction as narrowed by the Ninth Circuit.

In an order issued on May 5, 2025, the court rejected the federal government’s attempt to further narrow the category of refugees covered by the Ninth Circuit’s order to individuals with confirmable travel plans within two weeks of January 20, 2025, which would have reduced the number of covered refugees from approximately 12,000 individuals to about 160. Finding this proposal to be “interpretive jiggery-pokery of the highest order,” the district court ordered the federal government to resume the processing, admission, and provision of resettlement services to all refugees with confirmable travel plans, regardless of when that travel would occur. The court also set weekly milestones for the federal government’s compliance and weekly reporting requirements for the government to detail all actions taken to comply with the court’s order.

Subsequently, on May 9, the Ninth Circuit issued a clarifying order and instructed the district court to interpret its March 25, 2025 order narrowly, “on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito.” As a result, the district court withdrew its May 5, 2025 compliance order and issued a new order on May 15, 2025 that 1) requires the federal government to process, admit, and provide resettlement services to the previously identified 160 individuals who had confirmable travel plans within two weeks of January 20, 2025; and 2) establishes a method to appoint a special master who will determine whether other refugees are covered by the district court’s injunction, as narrowed and clarified by the Ninth Circuit.

On July 14, after an emergency conference on Defendants’ compliance with the preliminary injunction, the district court issued another order establishing a framework with specific details as to injunction implementation and the parties’ obligations, and appointing a magistrate judge (instead of a special master) to assist with the case-by-case determinations. For example, the order defines “reliance interest” and other groups of refugees who should be included, requires the government to identify eligible cases and provide notice to them, and sets a framework for seeking an end to the requirements. On July 19, the Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay temporarily pausing the injunction implementation framework, pending the resolution of the government’s motion to enforce, clarify, or amend the Court of Appeals’ stay order from March 25.

In addition, on April 28, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Briefing on that motion has been completed.

On July 30, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class, previously filed in March.