logo
Things to know about the ruling blocking President Trump's refugee ban

Things to know about the ruling blocking President Trump's refugee ban

SEATTLE (AP) — President Donald Trump's effort to suspend the system for resettling refugees in the U.S. is on hold after a federal judge in Seattle blocked it. U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a 2023 appointee of former President Joe Biden, found that while the president has broad authority over who comes into the country, he cannot nullify the law passed by Congress establishing the program.
The Justice Department indicated it would consider a quick appeal, saying Trump's actions have been well within his authority.
Here's what to know about the case.
What is this lawsuit about?
Trump halted the nation's refugee resettlement program as part of a series of executive orders cracking down on immigration, saying cities had been taxed by 'record levels of migration' and couldn't 'absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.' He barred refugees from coming to the U.S., and the administration began cutting off funding for agencies that support refugees.
The refugee program, created by Congress in 1980, is a form of legal migration to the U.S. for people displaced by war, natural disaster or persecution — a process that often takes years and involves significant vetting. It is different from asylum, by which people newly arrived in the U.S. can seek permission to remain because they fear persecution in their home country.
Despite long-standing support from both parties for accepting refugees, the program has become politicized in recent years. Trump also temporarily halted it during his first term, and then dramatically decreased the number of refugees who could enter the U.S. each year.
There are 600,000 people being processed to come to the U.S. as refugees around the world, according to the administration.
Major refugee aid groups are challenging Trump
The lawsuit filed in Seattle was brought by individual refugees whose efforts to resettle in the U.S. have been halted as well as major refugee aid groups.
Those organizations include International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of Church World Service, the Jewish refugee resettlement agency HIAS and Lutheran Community Services Northwest. They say they have had to lay off staff because the administration froze funding for processing refugee applications overseas as well as support, such as short-term rental assistance for those already in the U.S.
'We resettled people days before the inauguration that were just cut off from benefits,' said Lutheran Community Services Northwest CEO David Duea said after Tuesday's hearing. 'That means rent, helping kids get into school, and case management. It was an inhumane act.'
Justice Department lawyer August Flentje disputed the notion that the plaintiffs had suffered the sort of 'irreparable' harms that would warrant granting a broad order blocking the administration's actions. Most people whose travel to the U.S. was canceled at the last minute had already been moved to a third country where they were out of danger, he said, and the cancellation of funding for refugee aid groups amounted to a contract dispute.
The judge disagreed.
'I've read the declarations,' Whitehead said. 'I have refugees stranded in dangerous places. I have families who have sold everything they've owned in advance of travel, which was canceled. I have spouses and children separated indefinitely from their family members in the U.S., resettlement agencies that have already laid off hundreds of staff.'
Last week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to immediately block the Trump administration's actions in a similar lawsuit brought by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. That case faces another hearing Friday.
The judge said the president's authority is broad, not limitless
During Tuesday's arguments, Flentje cited a law that allows the president to deny entry to foreigners whose admission to the U.S. 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'
But Whitehead determined the president's actions amounted to an 'effective nullification of congressional will' in setting up the nation's refugee admissions program. He promised to offer a fuller rationale in a written opinion in the next few days.
'The president has substantial discretion ... to suspend refugee admissions,' Whitehead told the parties. 'But that authority is not limitless.'
An appeal is expected
Flentje indicated the government might file an 'emergency appeal' to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a motion that would be considered on an expedited basis. He also asked the Whitehead to pause his ruling pending an appeal, but Whitehead called that request premature since he had not yet issued his written decision.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they expected Whitehead's ruling to clear the way for money to begin flowing again to the organizations and for plaintiffs stranded overseas to be able to book new trips to the U.S., though it remained unclear whether any appeal might complicate that.
Outside the courthouse Tuesday, the organizations and their supporters celebrated the ruling, describing refugees as a blessing to the country.
Tshishiku Henry, an activist who works on behalf of refugees in Washington state, called his presence 'the miracle of the second chance.' He and his wife resettled in the U.S. in 2018 after fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, he said.
'It was a lifeline,' Henry said. 'You didn't offer us just safety, but you gave us back our future.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?
Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Boston Globe

time12 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Neither did Hegseth announced that National Guard members and the Marines will stay in Los Angeles for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At a Advertisement This is a Trump made-for-TV spectacle of authoritarianism disguised as law and order. It's likely a prelude to martial law. Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is Advertisement Protests were sparked last week after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted several workplace raids in Los Angeles, including a But what began as boisterous but peaceful protests against Trump's anti-immigrant scheme which now demands 'If I didn't ''SEND IN THE TROOPS,'" Trump said Tuesday on social media, Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now,' before he disparaged Bass and Newsom. Yes, there has been looting, and some cars have been burned and vandalized. But Trump is lying about the extent of lawlessness. Trump is following his bad policies with even worse provocations that could portend a modern-day Kent State tragedy with soldiers firing live bullets at protesters. But for Trump, the more chaos, the better. As a White House official said, 'We're happy to have this fight.' To some extent this fight to suppress dissent has been boiling in Trump for five years. During nationwide demonstrations after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, Trump, then in his first term, asked members of his Cabinet whether protesters could be shot. 'He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak, and 'us' meant him,' Mark Esper, Trump's former defense secretary, Advertisement Esper recalled Trump saying to now-retired General Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ''Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.' Ultimately, Trump was talked out of it. That won't happen this time, with an administration packed with people whose only loyalty is to him, not to the Constitution or rule of law. After Tom Homan, Trump's bloviating border czar, If not for the ICE arrest of But not now. Everything in Trump's second administration is designed to codify his authoritarianism. If Trump can convince enough people, especially among his white base, that he alone represents the thin orange line between civilization — as Advertisement Right now, the administration claims the military is in Los Angeles to protect federal buildings and assets — theoretically. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but neither has he ruled out unleashing US troops on protesters. With his draconian policies, Trump has lit the fuse for what could be a long and difficult summer of protests. With an occupying military force in this nation's second largest city, he has declared war against America itself. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at

Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line
Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line

New York Post

time12 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line

President Trump promised NYPD brass over the weekend that he will not send in the military or National Guard to tamp down on anti-ICE protests in New York City — as long as cops keep the demonstrators in line, The Post has learned. Trump's pledge was made to Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Kaz Daughtry and NYPD Chief of Department John Chell as the pair palled around with the president at his New Jersey golf club. Sources with knowledge of the meeting said Trump had voiced concerns over the destructive mass protests engulfing Los Angeles and them being replicated in the Big Apple. Advertisement But Chell reassured the president that any demonstrations in the city would not get out of hand, the sources said. Kaz Daughtry and John Chell though didn't tee it up with the commander in chief. Linkedin/john-chell The two Big Apple police officials met with Trump on Sunday. Linkedin/john-chell Advertisement Trump then told the two he didn't believe the National Guard would be necessary in New York City. It came after he ordered an initial 2,000 National Guard troops to LA Saturday amid the raging protests over federal immigration enforcement raids. Since then, the Trump administration has in total dispatched roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to the city– sparking an emergency request by California Gov. Gavin Newsom Tuesday for a federal court to block the deployment. On Monday, Mayor Eric Adams and his police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, decried the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and issued a stern warning to New Yorkers to not follow suit. 'The escalation of protests in Los Angeles over the last couple of days is unacceptable and would not be tolerated if attempted in our city,' Adams said. Advertisement Tisch added that 'any attacks against law enforcement will be met with a swift and decisive response from the NYPD.' Earlier Monday, dozens of protestors calling for an end to the ICE raids were arrested at Trump Tower after refusing to leave the Manhattan high-rise. The meeting between Trump and Adams' allies raised eyebrows in New York City political circles — after Daughtry and Chell posted photos on social media from the Bedminster club. 'Great day on the links today with POTUS, #45-#47 – Donald J. Trump. Good conversation with a few laughs and a great lunch. Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Kaz Daughtry and I were grateful for the invite,' Chell wrote. Advertisement Sources said the two Big Apple officials didn't actually tee it up with the prez, despite the photos showing them chatting with him on the links. Still, Adams defended the outing on Tuesday, telling reporters, 'A lot of great deals have been made on the golf course.' 'I thank the two of them for doing it,' he said. 'Many of you who play golf know that great decisions are made on the golf course.' Both Chell and Daughtry also joined the mayor at Trump's inauguration earlier this year.

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement
House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

The Brief House Republicans are voting on three bills that would override D.C. laws on noncitizen voting rights, limiting police powers, and restricting immigration enforcement cooperation. One bill, HR 884, repeals D.C.'s 2022 law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. HR 2056 would dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city protections by mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities. WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives are voting Tuesday on three Republican-backed bills that would override several local D.C. laws. The bills would roll back D.C. efforts expand voting rights for non-citizens, restrict police and force the District to work with immigration enforcement efforts on a federal level. D.C. passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting noncitizens in D.C. the right to vote in local elections. That includes mayoral races, D.C. Council positions, attorney general, ANC members, attorney general and D.C. ballot measures. Noncitizens can also run for elected office in the D.C. government. HR 884 would repeal the act, removing voting powers from noncitizens. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton released a statement, pushing back at Congress' power of local D.C. matters. "Last Congress, Republicans introduced 14 bills or amendments to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify or prohibit the carrying out of D.C.'s law that permits noncitizens to vote," said Norton. "Yet, Republicans refuse to make the only election law change D.C. residents have asked Congress to make, which is the right to hold elections for voting members of the House and Senate." The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would dismantle parts of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. HR 2096 would allow D.C. police officers to negotiate disciplinary matters through collective bargaining. It would also restore a statute of limitation for claims against the Metropolitan Police Department. "This bill was introduced three days after House Republicans passed a continuing resolution that cut D.C.'s local budget by one billion dollars. That act of fiscal sabotage, which did not save the federal government any money, has led to a freeze on overtime, hiring and pay raises, and furloughs or layoffs may be next," said Norton. "Nine weeks ago today, the Senate passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse the cut. The D.C. Local Funds Act is just sitting in the House. Like President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police, I call on the House to pass immediately the D.C. Local Funds Act." READ MORE: Congress' spending bill error leaves DC scrambling to cut $400M from budget HR 2056 would strike down D.C. policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would prohibit DC officials from "sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual." The bill would effectively dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city policies. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made moves to quietly overturn a law that prevents local police from cooperating with ICE, including it in a provision of her 2026 budget proposal. Big picture view The D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 allows the city to elect its own mayor and council. It's also allowed for D.C. to choose Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners to handle community concerns. Congress still maintains control over D.C., including the ability to review all local legislation and appoint the city's judges. D.C. has no voting member in Congress, though it has a nonvoting Delegate. In February, legislators from Utah and Tennessee introduced a bill to strip D.C. of its ability to govern itself. The bill is named after D.C.'s Mayor Muriel Bowser – the "Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act." The bill would eliminate D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and would place D.C. under the full control of Congress. The Source This story includes information from the US House of Representatives, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store