Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part preliminary injunctions concerning Executive Order No. 14163, which suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program, and related funding suspensions. The panel held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on most challenges to the President’s statutory authority or the defunding of overseas operations, but upheld relief concerning statutorily mandated services for admitted refugees and the termination of cooperative agreements. The court also concluded that the injunctions were permissible class-wide relief under Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Executive Order No. 14163 suspending USRAP exceeded the President's statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and the Refugee Act
- Whether the State Department's suspension and termination of USRAP funding violated the Administrative Procedure Act
- Whether the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over organizational plaintiffs' claims under the Tucker Act
- Whether agency actions were committed to agency discretion by law
- Whether there was final agency action subject to judicial review
- Whether termination of cooperative agreements was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law
Holdings
- The President's suspension of all refugee admissions under USRAP was within his statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which grants broad discretion to suspend entry of aliens.
- Nothing in the Refugee Act directs the President to continue processing applications while admissions have been suspended.
- The Court of Federal Claims does not have exclusive jurisdiction; the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the APA because the claims arise under a federal grant program and seek review of agency action rather than contract damages.
- The Refugee Act provides meaningful standards for judicial review, so the 'committed to agency discretion' exception does not apply.
- The State Department's termination letters constituted final agency action subject to judicial review, though the executive order itself is not reviewable because the President is not an agency under the APA.
- The Government likely acted contrary to law by terminating cooperative agreements for domestic resettlement services, as the Refugee Act mandates the Government provide certain services to refugees already admitted to the United States.
- The termination of cooperative agreements was likely arbitrary and capricious because the Government failed to provide reasoned explanations, factual findings, or bases for termination, and terminated agreements without considering reliance interests of individual refugees.
- It was not arbitrary and capricious for the State Department to defund overseas operations given the President's suspension of refugee admissions.
- The district court's injunctions complied with CASA because they constituted class-wide injunctive relief, which was not affected by the CASA decision.
Key quotations
“By its plain language, § 1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.”
“The wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.”
“The word 'shall' is mandatory.”
“District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling 'stop' just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise. Otherwise, the courts risk inching towards an imperial judiciary that lords over the President and Congress.”
Factual background
President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14163 on January 20, 2025, suspending all refugee admissions under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) pending further findings. The State Department suspended all funding for USRAP and terminated cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies. Plaintiffs, including individual refugees and refugee resettlement organizations, challenged the executive order and funding suspensions as exceeding presidential statutory authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action challenging Executive Order No. 14163 and the suspension of USRAP funding. The district court issued two preliminary injunctions prohibiting enforcement of the executive order and the suspension of funding. The Government appealed and sought a stay pending appeal. A motions panel granted in part and denied in part the stay. The district court later certified three subclasses. The Ninth Circuit partially stayed the injunctions pending final resolution.