Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Judge orders Trump administration to admit roughly 12,000 refugees

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 16 May 25 2:16 PM | 15 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens! 		Msg. 08406 of 08429
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Re: “A judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to admit some 12,000 refugees into the United States under a court order partially blocking the president’s efforts to suspend the nation’s refugee admissions program.”
- clo2 #msg-1264225  

On clo's board, there is no follow-up to stories that don't go the direction she wants. Her preference is to run from them like a weak, little female.

May 15, 2025

Judge Who Ordered Admin to Process 12,000 Refugees Tucks Tail After 9th Circuit Corrects Him...Again

by Susie Moore
RedState.com


I probably shouldn't find this as amusing as I do, but the volleying between a district court judge in the Western District of Washington and the 9th Circuit has become highly entertaining. In the latest development, Judge Jamal Whitehead has now rescinded his order setting forth a "compliance framework" for the Trump administration that required them to begin the process of settling roughly 12,000 refugees in a week's time. This comes after the 9th Circuit issued another "clarifying" order essentially rapping Whitehead on the knuckles.

Here's the back story:

• On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14163 suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) "until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States."

• On February 10, 2025, plaintiffs (several non-profit organizations and individuals) filed suit against President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and then-acting Secretary of Health and Human Services Dorothy Fink challenging the order (both as to the termination of the USRAP program and funding for it).

• On February 28, 2025, Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting administration officials from enforcing the executive order.

• On March 3, 2025, the Trump administration appealed Whitehead's order to the 9th Circuit.

• On March 25, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunction.•

On April 21, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a clarification as to its prior order, essentially putting the lower court (Whitehead) in check.

• On May 5, 2025, Whitehead issued an order setting forth a "compliance framework" for the Trump administration that required the administration to begin processing roughly 12,000 refugees within a week.


The sticking point addressed in Whitehead's May 5th order involved an interpretation of the third condition included in the 9th Circuit's order regarding which individuals should be exempted from the enforcement of the executive order (i.e., allowed to proceed with the immigration/resettlement process): "3. the individual had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States."

For added context, in that same order, the 9th Circuit had specified [citations omitted]: Plaintiffs clearly grasp that our order was intended to apply to those “refugees furthest along in the process . . . like Plaintiff Pacito, who sold all of his belongings in anticipation of flying to safety in the United States and was forced to shelter with his wife and baby in the parking lot of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi after their travel was abruptly cancelled.” Nevertheless, they believe our order applies to tens of thousands of individuals.
So, you get the sense that the appellate court was a tad exasperated with the plaintiffs' more expansive reading as to who was entitled to exemption from the EO. Nevertheless, Whitehead's subsequent order read as indignant and snippy, particularly toward the administration (but even a bit toward the appellate court). He characterized their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's prior order as "'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order." He concluded that [emphasis added]:The third criterion requires that the individual “had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States” as of January 20, 2025. Not “had arranged and confirmable travel plans with a departure window within two weeks of January 20, 2025.” Not “had imminent travel plans.” Not “had travel plans like Plaintiff Pacito’s.” Just, “had arranged and confirmable travel plans.” Had the Ninth Circuit intended to impose a two-week limitation—one that would reduce the protected population from about 12,000 to 160 individuals—it would have done so explicitly.
As anticipated, the administration quickly sought further clarification from the 9th Circuit (and, "in light of the increasingly contentious collateral proceedings over compliance in the district court," a complete stay of the district court's injunction).

On Friday, the 9th Circuit obliged and, in a very succinct order, again clarified that plaintiffs (and by inference, Whitehead) were again reading the scope of the exemption too broadly [emphasis added]:The government’s Motion to Amend Order Granting a Stay, or, in the Alternative, for Clarification, Dkt. 61, is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that we provide the following further clarification of our March 25, 2025 stay order, Dkt. 28, and our April 21, 2025 order clarifying the limited carveout from the stay, Dkt. 46. Our order should be interpreted narrowly, on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito. The government’s motion is otherwise DENIED.
Now, the 9th, despite having its patience tried, didn't go so far as to grant a complete stay as requested by the government, but they did make it pretty clear that Whitehead again overstepped. Message received, on Thursday, Whitehead issued an order rescinding his prior "compliance framework" order, narrowed to contemplate the roughly 160 refugees who met the three-part criteria and had travel scheduled within two weeks of the January 20, 2025, USRAP Executive Order."

Beyond that, he elected to appoint a "Special Master to assist in conducting case-by-case determinations for other refugee applicants who meet the three-part test but require individualized assessment of their reliance interests." In other words, there will still be a process in place for a broader number of refugees to have their eligibility for exemption assessed, but not at the pace (and from a practical standpoint, not of the scope) that Whitehead originally decreed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this particular aspect of the case is largely resolved, at least for now. But you never know...

http://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/05/15/judge-who-ordered-admin-to-process-12000-refugees-tucks-tail-after-9th-circuit-corrects-him-again-n2189147

» You can also:
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next