SEATTLE (CN) — A federal judge in Seattle denied the Trump administration’s latest attempt to sidestep a court order demanding it maintain the country’s refugee resettlement program pending appeal.
“Neither the government nor the public interest face injury from the court’s preliminary injunction compelling the government to meet its statutory obligations,” U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead wrote in a six-page order issued Friday afternoon.
The Joe Biden appointee determined that the plaintiffs in this case — three faith-based refugee assistance agencies and nine individual refugees — “suffer escalating irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.”
The denial comes days before the court is set to hold a hearing on whether the government is in compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit’s partial stay order. The government argued that a secondary stay is necessary, but Whitehead was not convinced.
“The government provides no new analysis on the merits, arguing only that it is ‘likely to prevail on appeal for all of the reasons explained in [its] prior briefing in this court,'” Whitehead wrote. “The court has already addressed and rejected those reasons and need not do so again here.”
Whitehead also rejected the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s partial stay of the district court’s first preliminary injunction indicated a likelihood of success upon appeal.
The resettlement agencies and refugees sued the government after President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for an overhaul to the U.S. refugee admissions program — one that the plaintiffs argue stranded refugees in the midst of traveling to the country and left agencies that partner with the government without funding.
Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction blocking the government from enforcing the order, titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” in late February. Shortly after Whitehead issued an oral injunction, but before he issued a written one, the State Department sent termination notices to contractors processing refugee admissions. The plaintiffs returned to the court requesting an emergency conference to address the action, which they argued violated the terms of the preliminary injunction.
Whitehead noted the timing of the notices was a “remarkable coincidence” but didn’t directly violate the order and requested more briefing from both sides.
The government appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit and asked the lower court to stay the order pending the appeals court proceedings, but Whitehead denied the motion. However, the Ninth Circuit determined otherwise and partially granted the government’s motion. A three-member panel of the appeals court issued a stay last Monday blocking the first preliminary injunction, except as it applies to individuals who were approved for refugee status prior to Trump taking office and issuing the order.
That same day, Whitehead issued a second preliminary injunction ordering the White House to reinstate all cooperative agreements previously terminated by the executive order and further forbade the government from enforcing the previously ordered funding termination
In asking for a stay on the second preliminary injunction, the government argued that the Ninth Circuit’s partial stay indicates its likely success, but Whitehead noted in his Friday order that the appeals court order explicitly keeps portions of his first preliminary injunction in place.
“Specifically, the Ninth Circuit maintained the injunction against suspending [U.S. Refugee Admissions Program] funding, processing, and admissions for ‘individuals who were conditionally approved for refugee status … before January 20, 2025,'” Whitehead wrote.
By that order, the government had to continue the obligations set out in the second preliminary injunction and continue to process, admit and provide resettlement support to that group of refugees, Whitehead wrote.
“Thus, the government’s claim that ‘the Ninth Circuit has stayed all aspects of this court’s February 25 injunction as to funding,’ is simply not supported by the Ninth Circuit’s actual order,” Whitehead wrote.
Plus, the Ninth Circuit’s order only addressed the president’s power to impose entry restrictions and didn’t touch on the Administrative Procedure Act issues at the center of the case, Whitehead noted.
A show cause hearing to discuss the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the first preliminary injunction is set for Wednesday.