Judge Forces Trump Admin To Restore Refugee Contracts

Gavel on table with glasses and notebook

A Seattle federal judge has dealt a blow to the Trump administration by blocking its attempt to suspend funding for refugee resettlement programs, reinstating contracts that had been terminated following an executive order.

Key Takeaways

Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction forcing the Trump administration to restore terminated refugee resettlement contracts
The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by refugee aid agencies after President Trump’s January executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
The court found that statutory obligations take priority over what the government characterized as mere “contract disputes”
While the administration can suspend approval of new refugees, those conditionally accepted before the suspension must be allowed to enter
The termination of resettlement contracts occurred just 24 hours after a previous court injunction against the refugee ban

Judge Overrules Administration’s Contract Terminations

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead partially blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to suspend funding for refugee admissions, finding it unlawful for the administration to terminate agreements with refugee resettlement agencies. The case, Pacito v. Trump, was filed in response to President Trump’s January executive order that suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Judge Whitehead ordered the federal government to restore funding to these agencies despite objections from administration officials.

The lawsuit was brought by several refugee aid organizations, including HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest, along with nine individuals directly affected by the suspension. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had begun terminating contracts related to refugee resettlement and processing following the executive order, but the court determined these actions would cause irreparable harm to both the agencies and refugee populations.

Court Rejects Administration’s “Contract Dispute” Argument

In his ruling, Judge Whitehead emphasized that the administration’s actions threatened the very existence of the refugee program established by Congress. The government contended these terminations were merely contract disputes beyond the court’s jurisdiction, but the judge disagreed with this characterization. The preliminary injunction was deemed necessary to prevent permanent damage to the refugee resettlement infrastructure while the parties continue to litigate.

“The Government contends these terminations are mere contract disputes beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, but this argument fundamentally misapprehends the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims,” U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead said.

The timing of the contract terminations raised particular concerns for the court, as they occurred just 24 hours after a separate court injunction against President Trump’s refugee ban. This sequence of events prompted the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) to file a motion for an emergency status conference, arguing the administration was attempting to circumvent the court’s earlier ruling through alternative means.

"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

Limited Victory for Administration in Appeals Court

While the Seattle ruling represents a setback for the Trump administration, it did secure a partial victory in a separate case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court determined the administration can suspend the approval of new refugees entering the United States, though it must allow those conditionally accepted before the suspension to enter. The appeals court referenced a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Trump’s travel ban from several mostly Muslim countries.

“We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States, and look forward to arguing this case in full,” said Melissa Keaney.

President Trump’s executive order cited “record levels of migration” and the strain on cities and communities as justification for suspending the refugee program. The administration has argued that communities are struggling to “absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.” The refugee program has become increasingly politicized in recent years, with refugee acceptance rates fluctuating significantly between administrations.

Ongoing Legal Battle Over Refugee Policy

The nationwide preliminary injunction remains in place, preventing enforcement of the refugee ban and requiring restoration of refugee processing and funding. Judge Whitehead’s written preliminary injunction emphasized the necessity for judicial intervention to preserve the separation of powers. The court ordered the government to provide updates on its efforts to resume refugee processing by March 10.

“Where, as here, Presidential action effectively nullifies a congressionally established program, causing irreparable harm to vulnerable individuals and organizations, judicial intervention becomes necessary to preserve the separation of powers our Constitution demands,” the preliminary injunction states.

Refugee assistance organizations view the administration’s actions as attempts to permanently dismantle the refugee program, which they argue is unlawful and undermines the authority of both Congress and the judiciary. The impact of these legal battles has been felt by refugees stranded in dangerous areas, separated families, and those with canceled travel plans who had been expecting to resettle in the United States.