A federal judge in Seattle, Jamal N. Whitehead, issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s executive order that suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, established in 1980. The judge indicated that the Trump administration likely exceeded its authority by nullifying congressional intent. Over 3 million refugees have been admitted through this program. The lawsuit, supported by individual refugees and resettlement organizations, contends that the order violates the law and due process rights. Trump may appeal, but compliance with the ruling remains uncertain, raising fears of potential defiance against judicial authority and a possible constitutional crisis.
A federal judge based in Seattle issued a ruling on Tuesday to block an executive order signed by President Trump shortly after his inauguration, which had suspended a long-standing program that allowed thousands of refugees to enter the United States each year.
Judge Jamal N. Whitehead, serving on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, granted a preliminary injunction that required the government to reinstate both the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and support for refugee assistance organizations while the court examined the legitimacy of a lawsuit aimed at challenging Mr. Trump’s order.
Judge Whitehead noted that it seemed probable that the Trump administration had overstepped its legal authority by halting a program established by Congress in 1980, which has facilitated the admission of over 3 million refugees into the United States.
In his bench ruling, Judge Whitehead indicated that the plaintiffs’ assertion that the White House’s order constituted an “effective nullification of congressional intent” was likely to succeed, highlighting the legal implications.
Laurie Ball Cooper, the vice president for legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, a nonprofit organization representing the plaintiffs, stated that the president’s authority was not absolute. “The refugee ban is unlawful and needs to be halted,” she asserted.
Representatives from the White House and the Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments regarding the ruling.
The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has endured across seven presidencies, including Mr. Trump’s initial term. The plaintiffs have accused Mr. Trump of infringing upon the law that created the program, as well as violating the rule-making procedures set forth by the Administrative Procedure Act and the due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Among the nine individual plaintiffs is a 22-year-old refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who faced a two-year process to gain resettlement in the United States, only to see his flight from Nairobi, Kenya, canceled just two days after the executive order was signed on January 20. Additionally, three organizations that receive federal funds to aid refugee resettlement joined the lawsuit.
Mr. Trump has expressed a tendency to contest unfavorable court rulings. The government may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to seek a stay on Judge Whitehead’s ruling. A stay from either the appellate court or the Supreme Court would reinstate the executive order during the ongoing legal challenge.
However, it remains uncertain whether the administration will comply, even if Judge Whitehead’s preliminary injunction is upheld. The Trump administration has been inundated with lawsuits contesting its directives, with agencies often seeking ways to circumvent compliance with judicial instructions.
In unrelated cases, two federal judges have accepted requests for a “motion to enforce,” signaling that the government was not adhering promptly to the court’s initial orders.
While no judge has found any administration officials in contempt of court, a social media post by Mr. Trump stating that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” has heightened concerns that the executive branch might refuse to obey court orders altogether. Legal professionals warn that such blatant disregard for the judiciary’s power to interpret the law could trigger a constitutional crisis.
Hamed Aleaziz and Miriam Jordan contributed reporting.