A federal judge in Seattle has ruled that the Trump administration cannot use its 2025 travel ban to block the entry of refugees who had already completed the government’s vetting process. The decision requires the immediate resumption of processing for 80 individuals who were denied entry despite prior approval.
U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead issued the order late Monday, stating that the June proclamation restricting entry from 12 countries does not apply to refugees. In his opinion, the administration’s actions misapplied the language of the policy and unlawfully interfered with the legal right to seek refugee status.
Whitehead wrote that the proclamation “expressly states” it does not limit refugee admissions, and that applying it to this group undermines the order’s terms.
The blocked refugees include relatives of active-duty U.S. military personnel and more than 1,600 Afghans who supported American operations abroad. Many had already waited years to complete background checks and other screening steps. They remained stranded across multiple countries after the refugee program was paused shortly after President Trump returned to office on January 20.
The lawsuit, brought by individual refugees and nonprofit organizations, also challenged the administration’s freeze on refugee-related funding. Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status so that similar cases can benefit from any ruling issued in their favor.
In February, Judge Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction barring the suspension of refugee admissions and funding. At the time, he found the administration’s actions likely violated congressional intent, since the refugee program had been authorized and funded by law.
That injunction was largely put on hold in March by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the administration was likely to succeed on appeal due to the president’s broad authority over immigration policy.
In addition to ordering the processing of the 80 blocked refugees, Judge Whitehead directed the government to create a process for reviewing other cases involving denials under the suspension.
A federal court struck down the Biden administration’s controversial policy limiting who may be considered for asylum in the United States. The court found that the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing the new rule without proper time for public notice and comment. The so-called asylum ban... Read More »
An executive order signed within the first 24 hours of the President Biden administration rescinded former-President Trump’s “discriminatory ban” on entry into the United States, effectively canceling one executive order and three presidential proclamations issued by the previous administration. The new order requires the departments of State and Homeland Security... Read More »
With less than two weeks before President-elect Biden takes office, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s proposed asylum restrictions that would have overhauled the immigration system with restrictive new provisions. The new rule was to take effect on January 11. While the granting of... Read More »
Is it a travel ban? Is it a Muslim ban? Is it a valid exercise of presidential authority? The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii, the case challenging the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order halting immigration from six predominately Muslim countries. The order is in... Read More »
