Federal court in Seattle hears arguments on Trump suspension of refugee aid
The Brief
The fight over Donald Trump's executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program was back in Seattle court on Wednesday.
Those who filed the lawsuit say the order violates the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Administrator Procedure Act, but the government argued against the accusations.
SEATTLE - The fight over the abrupt withholding of federal dollars for refugee aid was back in court. The hearing was held in Seattle Wednesday, at the federal courthouse of the Western District of Washington. The hearing follows a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Timeline
On January 27, the president's executive order went into effect, suspending all refugee entry into the United States. The order also abruptly suspended millions of federal dollars for admissions agencies and resettlement programs that serve refugees.
A week before the order began, The Trump Administration said, "The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees. This order suspends the USRAP program until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States."
The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) filed a lawsuit, Pacito et al v. Trump, with the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit was filed against the executive order on behalf of nine impacted people and refugee advocacy groups that support them. The lawsuit challenges the president's refugee ban, stating it violates the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Administrator Procedure Act.
In March, a U.S. District Court Judge in Seattle filed a preliminary injunction against the executive order. The IRAP also explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "partially denied the government's motion to stay the first preliminary injunction," in lawsuit challenging the president's executive order.
The IRPA further explained, "The court ruled that the injunction will remain in effect for refugees who were conditionally approved as of January 20, 2025 – many of whom were ready to travel to the United States when President Trump suspended the refugee program."
Now, the IRPA and lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case are accusing the defendants, the federal government, of not complying with the court's injunction order.
"This has turned into a game of whack-a-mole. At each turn, they invent a new strategy to avoid their legal obligations. The effect of this delay on refugees and the organizations that serve them has been devastating," said one attorney representing the plaintiffs.
The representatives with the U.S. Department of Justice, representing the President in the lawsuit, denied the accusations. Representatives said the government was waiting for clarification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to determine the government's next steps.
"The government strongly disagrees with any suggestion that the government has been out of compliance. The government complies within junctions, and if it believes they are not appropriate, it seeks further review either from the issuing court or from a court of appeals, as may be appropriate," said one representative. "The government swiftly sought the Ninth Circuit's clarification because we believe that the Ninth Circuit is the court in the best position to interpret its own order. We are hopeful that the court will soon give clarity on this question."
It had been more than a month since the Ninth Circuit and the federal court in Seattle ruled on the injunctions. During Wednesday's federal court hearing, plaintiffs said the government had made no action to abide by the rules and accused the government of stalling.
"It is clear the defendants do not plan to comply with either preliminary injunction, and conditionally approved refugees will suffer the consequences," said one plaintiff attorney.
"I think plaintiffs would submit that slowing down is not only inappropriate, but it would undermine the order of the Ninth Circuit that we are asking this court to enforce, as well as its own preliminary injunction orders," said a representative of the Ninth Court.
A federal court judge in Seattle said he would decide the next steps in this case by the end of Wednesday.
Regarding the resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the White House wrote, "Within 90 days of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit a report to the President through the Homeland Security Advisor regarding whether resumption of entry of refugees into the United States under the USRAP would be in the interests of the United States, in light of the policies outlined in section 2 of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit further reports every 90 days thereafter until I determine that resumption of the USRAP is in the interests of the United States."
The Source
Information in this story is from the International Refugee Assistance Project, the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice and FOX 13 Seattle reporting.
Convicted child molester linked to missing WA grandmother case
FBI investigating Tesla charging station damaged overnight in Lacey
Remains of Laurie Krage identified in Pierce County, WA cold case
Police: Man sets building on fire during Auburn standoff, likely dead
Juvenile shot near King County middle school, deputies say
Tariffs live updates: Trump's sweeping plan takes effect, including 104% on China
To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter.
Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national coverage, plus 24/7 streaming coverage from across the nation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
19 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Says Musk Will Face ‘Very Serious Consequences' If He Backs Democrats
President Donald Trump on June 7 warned that Elon Musk could face 'serious consequences' if he decides to back Democratic political candidates in upcoming elections. While Musk campaigned for Trump's 2024 presidential run and was a key member in the Trump administration's fight against fraud and waste, the two were involved in a public spat this week, apparently fueled by their disagreements over Trump's budget priorities in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What we know so far: Trump and Musk's spectacular public blowup rocks Washington
President Trump's signature 'Big Beautiful Bill' has precipitated an epic fallout between the US president and one of his closest allies, billionaire Elon Musk. The blowup played out publicly on social media, with both men using their respective platforms, X and Truth Social, to exchange criticisms. Related: Eyes on Senate Republicans as Trump and Musk feud over tax and spend bill Here is a summary of how the rift unfolded, and what we know so far: Donald Trump kicked off the fight during an Oval Office meeting with German chancellor Friedrich Merz. Asked about Elon Musk's criticism of his 'Big, Beautiful Bill', the US president told reporters: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more.' Trump told reporters he was 'very disappointed in Elon', telling them: 'He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left. … He said the most beautiful things about me, and he hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next, but I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Soon after Musk posted on X denying Trump's statement, beginning a flurry of posts that stepped up his feud with the president. Musk wrote: 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' He went on to claim that without him Trump would have 'lost the election' before bemoaning what he called 'such ingratitude'. The president followed up by , prompting a return threat from the SpaceX boss to decommission the Dragon spacecraft (which brought home astronauts stuck on the ISS for months), potentially throwing US space programmes into turmoil. Hours later Musk rescinded the threat. Musk also suggested Trump should be impeached and that JD Vance should replace Trump, warning that Trump's global tariffs would 'cause a recession in the second half of this year'. Musk went on to say on X the reason the had not released the files into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was because they implicated the president. The White House called the assertions an 'unfortunate episode'. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon, a longtime ally and Elon Musk critic, suggested there were grounds to deport the tech billionaire, who has US citizenship. Bannon told the New York Times: 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately.' The spectacular blowout between Trump and Musk sent Tesla shares into free fall. They The decline in Tesla's share price on Thursday knocked about $8.73bn off Musk's total net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The reported $152bn drop also decreased the value of the company to roughly $900bn.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick
The White House has withdrawn as its nominee for Nasa administrator, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head Nasa,' the US president posted online. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America first in space.' Related: Drugs, marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office send-off for Elon Musk Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead Nasa, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, said he was 'incredibly grateful' to Trump 'and all those who supported me throughout this journey'. 'I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry,' he posted. 'It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission.' Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal. 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US space force and a Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of the payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency. The Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, posted that Isaacman had been 'a strong choice by President Trump to lead Nasa'. Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say 'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said. Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce. 'So not having [Isaacman] as boss of Nasa is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell posted. 'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being Nasa head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario. With Reuters