Judge Orders Trump Administration to Reinstate Terminated Refugee Resettlement Contracts

The president signed an order in January suspending refugee resettlement.

Lutheran Community Services Northwest building in Portland, Ore. Google Maps/Screenshot via The Epoch Times

A federal judge on March 24 ordered the Trump administration to reinstate refugee resettlement contracts that officials had terminated, finding that the extraordinary relief was warranted as a legal case proceeds.

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead said that all contracts terminated under President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) must be reinstated.

“The Court recognizes that such relief is extraordinary but concludes it is necessary to prevent permanent damage and preserve the status quo while the parties litigate the merits of this lawsuit,” he wrote in a 37-page decision.

The preliminary injunction is set to remain in place until a further order from the court or unless a higher court stays it.

The judge in February blocked Trump’s order, finding that plaintiffs who sued over it were suffering irreparable harm, such as being stranded in dangerous places.

Hours later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began terminating all contracts for the domestic reception of refugees being resettled as well as placement services, and all but one agreement for the processing of refugees abroad. The notices of termination all stated that the contracts were found to “no longer effectuate agency priorities.”

Lutheran Community Services Northwest and other plaintiffs, including affected refugees, urged the court to act, arguing the government’s actions meant the government could not comply with the judge’s February order.

The plaintiffs have shown that the terminations of the contracts violate requirements and go against Congress’s establishment of a permanent system for refugee admission and resettlement, known as USRAP, Whitehead said.

“While the Government enjoys significant discretion in administering USRAP, that discretion does not extend to abandoning statutory obligations or rendering the program effectively inoperative. The Government’s sudden termination of decades-old agreements without reasoned explanation likely constitutes arbitrary and capricious action that must be set aside,” he said. “Without immediate relief, refugees remain stranded abroad, families separated, and resettlement agencies shuttered.”

Government lawyers had told the judge that the dispute is a contractual one that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. Even if the regular court system has jurisdiction, the lawyers said, the terminations were lawful.

“The Secretary can manage the international aspects of the refugee program in whatever way he thinks appropriate, and the Executive’s authority is at its apex when spending money abroad,” they wrote in a filing.

Whitehead said that the plaintiffs were asserting rights from statutory requirements, not contractual promises, and that the relief they sought—vacatur of the contract terminations—means the federal claims court cannot provide an adequate remedy, and jurisdiction rests with the court.

“The Government contends these terminations are mere contract disputes beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, but this argument fundamentally misapprehends the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims,” the judge said. “Rather than seeking contractual remedies, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enforce statutory obligations through its inherent equitable powers—authority that Congress specifically reinforces in the Administrative Procedure Act by empowering courts to ‘issue all necessary and appropriate process’ to prevent irreparable injury.”