On March 25, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration authority to halt the approval of new refugee admissions into the United States, pending the outcome of ongoing litigation concerning the President’s executive order that suspended the nation’s refugee admissions program.
Refugees who received conditional approval before President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, are still eligible for processing. However, the court’s decision permits the administration to suspend new approvals. This ruling partially overturns a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle, who had asserted that the President could not nullify a congressionally established program and mandated its continuation.
The executive order in question cites concerns that cities and communities have been strained by “record levels of migration” and lack the capacity to “absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.” According to the administration, approximately 600,000 individuals worldwide are currently in the process of seeking refugee status in the U.S.
Historically, the U.S. refugee program has enjoyed bipartisan support, serving as a legal pathway for individuals displaced by war, natural disasters, or persecution. However, in recent years, the program has become a focal point of political debate. Notably, during his first term, President Trump temporarily halted the program and significantly reduced the annual number of refugees permitted entry into the country.
The Justice Department has defended the executive order, asserting that it falls within the President’s authority. Conversely, plaintiffs—including organizations such as the International Refugee Assistance Project, Church World Service, HIAS (a Jewish refugee resettlement agency), Lutheran Community Services Northwest, and individual refugees and their families—argue that the suspension lacks sufficient justification. They contend that the order hampers their ability to provide essential services to refugees, including those already residing in the U.S.
The appeals court’s decision underscores the ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding refugee admissions and the extent of executive power in shaping immigration policy.
