Judge declines to reinstate refugee resettlement program funding for now

The Hill

20-02-2025

A federal judge declined to direct the Trump administration to reinstate funding for refugee resettlement programs after Catholic bishops challenged the freeze, but signaled he might do so in the future.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by President Trump during his first term, said he would not grant the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) a temporary restraining order at this stage of litigation because they failed to prove irreparable harm.
However, he said he would consider on an expedited schedule authorizing an indefinite pause on the administration's funding freeze, calling his ruling not 'conclusive at all.'
'This is very tentative,' McFadden said, setting a preliminary injunction hearing for Feb. 28.
The USCCB on Tuesday sued to stop the Trump administration from halting funding for local organizations that partner with the federal government to support refugees once they arrive in the United States.
The conference said more than 6,700 admitted refugees were assigned to USCCB when its funding was cut off late last month, leaving the organization on the hook for millions of dollars weekly and forcing layoffs of employees. Some 5,200 refugees remain in its care for now, but the funding freeze has thrown that into uncertainty.
David Casazza, a lawyer for USCCB, said the conference has partnered with the government for more than 40 years, across presidential administrations, to provide legal refugees with support. But in one day, the rug was pulled up.
He said the State Department owes USCCB $13 million in outstanding payments, and since their funding was frozen, more than $11 million has been accrued due to the conference's 'moral obligation' to continue providing support.
Instead of instantly cutting off the conference's funding, the State Department should have winded the program down by providing only refugees already in the country with the 90 days of aid they are entitled to support, Casazza said.
'That would have avoided all the collateral consequences that have been suffered here,' Casazza said.
In court filings, the conference argued that refugees already in the United States could be cut off from support, making it more challenging for them to become 'productive members of society' in a contravention of Congress's statutorily expressed will.
The State Department awarded USCCB roughly $65 million for initial resettlement programs this year but justified the pause under Trump's executive order suspending foreign aid.
Lawyers for USCCB argued that the conference exclusively provides 'domestic assistance' to refugees who have been vetted by the government and are already legally in the country.
But Joseph Carilli, a lawyer for the Justice Department, said the program is still classified as a foreign affairs program, impacted by the president's executive order.
Carilli argued that the government's contract with USCCB allowed for termination at any time, which would have resulted in similar consequences for the conference. He also noted that across different presidential administrations, the amount of aid and number of refugees have differed.
'There is an expansion and retraction that happens naturally,' Carilli said.
The upheaval forced USCCB's Migration and Refugee services to send layoff notices to more than half of its staff; it expects additional cuts in local Catholic Charities offices partnered with the national office, according to the conference's lawsuit. Those terminations are set to go into effect on March 7.
The Trump administration has also been sued by immigration groups over its suspension of new refugee admissions in a challenge that also addressed the abrupt cutoff of funding to those that aid refugees.
Trump has issued a barrage of immigration actions since returning to the White House, ranging from restricting birthright citizenship to taking on so-called sanctuary cities.
That, plus the administration's efforts to suspend parts of the federal budget, have come under intense legal scrutiny prompting nearly 80 lawsuits challenging major administration actions.
The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., federal district court, claims the freeze undermines Congress's power of the purse and violates multiple federal laws.