Rubio Blocked From Canceling Refugee Resettlement Contracts (4)

March 25, 2025, 12:12 PM UTCUpdated: March 25, 2025, 8:09 PM UTC

Secretary of State Marco Rubio must stop canceling US Refugee Admissions Program contracts after a federal judge ruled that terminating the agreements would “effectively dismantle” the resettlement agency in violation of an earlier court order.

Rubio’s actions were designed to skirt a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump‘s executive order dismantling the USRAP’s infrastructure, Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington said Monday. This second injunction is “necessary to prevent permanent damage and preserve the status quo while the parties litigate the merits of this lawsuit,” he said.

The defendants on Tuesday filed an appeal to this ruling with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Trump faces more than 100 cases challenging his executive actions, including many that argue he has exceeded his power to freeze appropriated funding and close down agencies without Congress’ signoff. The administration has taken an aggressive stance toward the courts, including Trump’s call for impeaching a veteran jurist who tried to block the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The government appealed Whitehead’s original injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but also canceled the contracts. “Hours after this Court enjoined implementation of the USRAP Executive Order,” Rubio started " terminating every resettlement agency cooperative agreement for domestic reception and placement services and all but one agreement for USRAP processing support abroad,” Whitehead said.

Whitehead refused to stay his original injunction on March 21, saying that the government didn’t show that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from the injunction, or that it was contrary to the public interest. He said that without the injunction, the plaintiffs will be stranded abroad in physical danger, will be separated from family members, and will be deprived of critical resettlement benefits and support services in the US. The judge also previously ordered the government to report on its efforts to restart the refugee settlement programs after blocking the executive order suspending their funding.

Likelihood to Win on Merits

Whitehead made clear that the pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit didn’t deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. The plaintiffs’ request for a second preliminary injunction deals with actions taken after the initial injunction was issued and it represents a new action that threatens to render the initial injunction ineffective, he said.

The government also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were contract claims, subject to the jurisdiction of the US Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. The plaintiffs’ claims were made under the Administrative Procedures Act and don’t seek monetary damages, Whitehead said. Further, under Court of Federal Claims precedent, the USRAP cooperative agreements probably aren’t contracts under the Tucker Act, he said.

The funding terminations can be reviewed under the APA and the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits of their claim, Whitehead said. They showed that the funding terminations likely violate the framework for refugee admission and resettlement under the Refugee Act and that they’re arbitrary and capricious, he said.

The plaintiffs will also suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and the public interest isn’t served by maintaining executive actions that conflict with federal law, Whitehead said, granting the preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs include Church World Service Inc., a national nonprofit involved in refugee resettlement work. Individual plaintiffs include a man from the Democratic Republic of the Congo approved for resettlement to the US and scheduled to travel on Jan. 22 before the flight was canceled, according to the complaint.

The International Refugee Assistance Project and Perkins Coie LLP represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Pacito v. Trump, W.D. Wash., No. 2:25-cv-00255-JNW, 3/24/25.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bernie Pazanowski in Washington at bpazanowski@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Carmen Castro-Pagán at ccastro-pagan@bloomberglaw.com; Drew Singer at dsinger@bloombergindustry.com; Blair Chavis at bchavis@bloombergindustry.com

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn About Bloomberg Law

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.