A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday halted President Donald Trump’s order suspending refugee admissions and funding.
District Court Judge, Jamal Whitehead, handed down the preliminary injunction at the end of a hearing that lasted nearly an hour.
Whitehead ruled that the president’s actions amounted to an effective nullification of congressional will in establishing the nation’s refugee admissions program.
In his words, Whitehead said that while the president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions, the authority is not limitless.
The lawsuit was filed in the Seattle court by HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest, along with several individual refugees affected by the order.
On his first in office upon his second coming, Trump had signed an executive order, halting the admission of refugees into the United States, and freezing funds initially aimed at supporting the refugees.
The Justice Department had defended Trump’s suspension, claiming it was necessary for the interests of the United States.
Department of Justice attorney August Flentje had said, “There are over 600,000 people in refugee processes; it’s expensive … the agency made a decision to reevaluate,”
The order had been met with opposition from various groups, including nine affected individuals and three resettlement organizations who filed the lawsuit.
They argued that Trump’s order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Refugee Act of 1980.
Judge Whitehead’s ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict refugee admissions. The decision will remain in effect until the case is resolved, unless the Justice Department appeals it.
The Justice Department can appeal the injunction halting Trump’s executive order on several grounds, including:
– Constitutional Authority: The Justice Department may argue that the executive order falls within the president’s constitutional authority, particularly with regards to immigration and national security ¹.
– Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The department might claim that the executive order is a lawful exercise of agency authority under the APA, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
– National Security Concerns: The Justice Department could argue that the executive order is necessary to protect national security interests and that the injunction jeopardizes these interests.
– Separation of Powers: The department may contend that the court’s injunction oversteps the judicial branch’s authority and interferes with the executive branch’s constitutional powers.
These grounds would likely form the basis of the Justice Department’s appeal, arguing that the district court’s decision was erroneous and should be reversed.
