Trump Refugee Lawsuit: Pacito v. Trump, Injunctions and Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump is a federal class action filed February 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that challenges President Trump’s indefinite suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Refugee resettlement agencies and nine individual refugees sued to block Executive Order 14163, which halted refugee admissions, froze funding, and terminated contracts with the organizations that receive refugees in the United States. After a year of injunctions and appeals, the Ninth Circuit has left the refugee ban itself in place but required the government to keep funding services for refugees already on U.S. soil. A bench trial is scheduled for September 8, 2026.¹

The Executive Order That Prompted the Suit

President Trump signed Executive Order 14163, “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office. It suspended all refugee admissions as of January 27, ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security to stop processing refugee applications, and allowed only narrow case-by-case exceptions jointly approved by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security. The order cited national security and taxpayer costs and revoked the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14013.²

The State Department began canceling scheduled refugee flights on January 21, before the order’s stated effective date. The suspension swept in all priority referral categories, the Welcome Corps private sponsorship program, Central American Minor refugees, and follow-to-join family petitions. Special Immigrant Visa applicants appeared to be the only group not directly covered.³ On January 24, resettlement agencies received stop-work orders barring them from providing services to more than 22,000 refugees who had recently arrived. On February 26, the administration terminated federal cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies nationwide.⁴

Who Sued and What They Argued

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and co-counsel Perkins Coie filed the complaint on behalf of three resettlement agencies — HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest — and nine individual refugees identified by pseudonyms, including the lead plaintiff, “Pacito.” The defendants are President Trump, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.¹

The plaintiffs argued that the executive order nullified the framework Congress established in the Refugee Act of 1980 and exceeded the president’s statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. They alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, contending the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating resettlement contracts without reasoned explanation and without a public comment period. They also raised Fifth Amendment and separation-of-powers claims. Central to their theory was a distinction: the administration had not merely reduced admissions, which presidents have broad discretion to do, but had dismantled the entire statutory infrastructure for processing and resettling refugees.¹

Judge Whitehead’s Injunctions

U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction from the bench on February 25, 2025, blocking enforcement of key sections of Executive Order 14163. He found the administration had likely “crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will.” Judge Whitehead acknowledged that the president has “substantial discretion” over refugee admissions but held that discretion is not limitless and cannot override the framework Congress created.⁵

On February 28, he issued a written order expanding the injunction to prohibit the suspension of all USRAP funding. On March 24, he issued a second preliminary injunction ordering the State Department to reinstate cooperative agreements with resettlement support centers that had been terminated after the first ruling.⁶

The Ninth Circuit Rulings

The government appealed immediately and moved for an emergency stay. On March 25, 2025, a motions panel granted a partial stay, allowing the refugee ban to take effect for most applicants but denying the stay for individuals who had already been conditionally approved for refugee status by USCIS before January 20, 2025.⁷

The September 2025 Interim Order

After oral arguments on September 3, 2025, in Pasadena, a panel of Judges Richard Clifton, Jay Bybee, and Kenneth Lee issued an interim order on September 12 that stayed the district court’s February 28 and March 24 injunctions almost entirely, concluding the government was likely to prevail on its argument that the president has broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend refugee admissions. The panel carved out one exception: it directed the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements needed to provide reception and placement services to refugees already admitted to the United States. Judge Bybee wrote that the government was not likely to succeed in arguing it could cut off services the Refugee Act appeared to mandate for people already on U.S. soil. Judge Lee dissented in part, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1522 authorizes rather than mandates resettlement services, leaving funding to executive discretion.⁶

The March 2026 Opinion

On March 5, 2026, the same panel issued its full opinion, affirming in part and reversing in part. The court held that the president does have the statutory authority to suspend refugee admissions under § 1182(f) and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the executive order exceeded presidential power. This was the administration’s biggest win in the case.⁸

The panel also upheld two pieces of the district court’s injunction. It found the government’s termination of cooperative agreements with resettlement support centers was likely arbitrary and capricious because the government had provided no “reasoned explanations, factual findings, or bases” for the terminations and had failed to consider the reliance interests of individual refugees. It agreed the government likely acted contrary to law by cutting off statutorily mandated services to refugees who were already living in the United States.⁸⁹

The court rejected the government’s argument that the injunctions were impermissible “universal injunctions,” noting that because a class had been certified in July 2025, the relief complied with the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc.⁸

Class Certification

On July 30, 2025, Judge Whitehead certified the case as a class action, a step that later proved decisive at the Ninth Circuit. The court defined three subclasses: refugees currently being processed for admission; U.S.-based individuals petitioning for family reunification under the Follow-to-Join program; and refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders who had been resettled in the United States and were within their first 90 days after arrival. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss on the same day.¹¹⁰

What Has Changed on the Ground

Pacito himself is a 22-year-old Congolese refugee who fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2016 and had been living in Kenya. His flight to the United States, originally scheduled for January 22, 2025, was canceled two days after the executive order was signed. Under Judge Whitehead’s preliminary injunction, the government was ordered to admit 160 refugees who had confirmed travel plans between January 20 and January 27. Pacito, his wife, and their one-year-old son arrived at Raleigh-Durham International Airport on July 10, 2025, and were resettled in North Carolina.¹¹

As of July 2025, about 40 of the 160 individuals covered by the court’s order had reached the United States. Roughly 80 remained stranded because they were nationals of countries covered by a separate travel ban. Resettlement organizations estimated that more than 125,000 DHS-approved refugees remained blocked by the administration’s policies.¹² Two of the nine national resettlement agencies, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Episcopal Migration Ministries, exited resettlement entirely.¹³

The refugee ceiling for fiscal year 2026 was initially set at a record-low 7,500, with slots allocated primarily for Afrikaners from South Africa under a separate executive order.¹⁴ On May 21, 2026, an emergency presidential determination raised the ceiling to 17,500, with the additional 10,000 slots reserved for Afrikaners.¹⁵

What’s Next

On February 6, 2026, Judge Whitehead scheduled a bench trial for September 8, 2026.¹ On April 7, 2026, IRAP moved to file an amended complaint addressing the government’s continued suspension of processing over the preceding 14 months and challenging what IRAP characterized as a discriminatory preference for white Afrikaners within the administration’s implementation of the refugee program.¹⁶ Either side could seek Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s March 2026 opinion.⁹

1
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Pacito v. Trump
2
The White House. Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program
3
Human Rights First. Analysis of the Trump Administration’s Initial Immigration Executive Actions
4
International Rescue Committee. How Have Trump Policies Impacted Refugees
5
Courthouse News Service. Federal Judge Blocks Trump Order Suspending Refugee Admissions
6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pacito v. Trump, No. 25-1313 (Sept. 12, 2025)
7
CourtListener. Pacito v. Trump Docket
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pacito v. Trump, Nos. 25-1313, 25-1939 (Mar. 5, 2026)
9
JURIST. US Appeals Court Rules Trump May Suspend Refugee Admissions
10
International Refugee Assistance Project. Refugee Ban Challenge Will Move Forward as Class Action Lawsuit
11
Religion News Service. Plaintiff in Pacito v. Trump Is Resettled in North Carolina
12
International Refugee Assistance Project. Refugees Arrive in United States Under Court Order
13
Forum Together. Reshaping Refuge: The New Era of United States Refugee Admissions
14
Immigration Policy Tracking Project. President Trump Sets Record Low Refugee Cap of 7,500
15
The American Presidency Project. Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2026
16
International Refugee Assistance Project. Pacito v. Trump: Challenging Trump’s Suspension of USRAP