The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Church World Service (CWS), HIAS, Lutheran Community Services NW, and nine other individuals filed a lawsuit, Pacito v Trump, against President Donald J Trump for his suspension of the Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), and with it, abruptly withholding millions of federal dollars for refugee assistance agencies.
U.S. District Court Judge Jamal Whitehead Seattle filed a preliminary injunction against the President and others in his administration last Tuesday for his Executive Order suspending refugee admissions and ending funding for resettlement agencies—an order that was signed in the midst of over 600,000 refugees in the process of resettling in the United States.
The very next day, organizations such as the CWS, HIAS, and other refugee service agencies were given termination notices from the State Department with hopes to restore federal funding for refugee services.
The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) argued, during an emergency conference, that Trump’s executive order directly violated the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as the Administrator Procedure Act.
According to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services there are more than 30,000 refugees, from over 70 different countries, in Washington State who have resettled here through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
An emergency hearing was held in the federal courthouse of Western Washington District Court on Tuesday, March 4, where plaintiffs Jonathan Hawley and Lori Kalani, council with Perkins Coie law firm, joined by Melissa Keaney with IRAP, who argued that the President’s actions were “nothing other than an attempt to circumvent the relief that the court has ordered.”
“Defendant’s (Trump’s) attempt to withhold funding that’s been duly appropriated for the U.S. Refugee Admissions program is unlawful and the only thing that’s changes is that defendants can no longer claim that their actions are temporary,” argued Keaney. “All of the facts including the timing and the nature of what the government has done here suggest that this is an attempt at making an in rem on this court’s ruling in advance of the ready order which was issued last Friday.”
The termination notices, just like the suspension notices Keaty added, reflect a policy decision which the court has already found to be unlawful.
What’s more the President’s actions have disastrous consequences to refugees as they cannot afford to have their funding frozen, according to IRAP. Since the termination notices IRAP has had to let go an additional 200 members of their staff, said Keaney.
August Flentje, with the U.S. Department of Justice, who represented defendant Donald Trump in the case, believed the proper avenue to challenge the terminations would be an amended complaint and a supplemental PI motion.
Flentje acknowledged that the plaintiffs were right in that the 10 domestic resettlement contracts were terminated but the grants that work overseas to facilitate refugee entry have not all been terminated and are still in place.
The federal judge presiding in the case, which is being called Pacito et al v. Trump, asked Flentje why the government issued termination notices the very same day after an injunction was filed in response to the suspension of federal funding.
Flentje denied the timing had anything to do with the injunction explaining it had everything to do with a speed up in processes in another pending litigation case in the capitol.
“I think the timing primarily is related to the case in the District of Columbia with similar pleadings. The Secretary issued the suspension and said for 90 days I’m going to look at all of these to see if they further agency priorities,” said Flentje. “The court in DDC joined that suspension then the choice was funding would resume. That sped up Secretary’s process such that the declaration was carried out in a couple of weeks and basically concluded on February 26 and resulted in termination of most, but not all, refugee-related agreement.”
Flentje added that the State has maintained its funding contract with the United Nation’s Office of Migration – the entity which funds travel to the United States. However, as plaintiffs argued in court Tuesday, these contracts have not received a single cent since the court issued its order.
He defended the decision to terminate all 10 domestic services is that the refugee statute, section 22, does not require the services and the Secretary has reviewed those agreements and determined that they do not serve agency priorities.
When asked by the presiding judge on the case whether staff were given prior notice of termination Flentje said that they were given notice of termination, but they did not receive notification prior to the agreement termination. He defended this by, again, restating that the program is discretionary and not mandatory, as viewed by the agreement.
In the cooperative agreement, section 200.3.40, states: “the agreements can be terminated by the department to the greatest extent authorized by law if the award no longer effectuates the program’s goals or agency priorities.”
However, as plaintiffs pointed out, these contracts can be terminated “by the extent authorized by law,” but the defunding of US RAP is unlawful, as found by the court.
Plaintiffs further argued that the government has not given any indication whether they will be providing pay, reimbursement, or benefits pursuant by the Act’s 50-years as law.
The federal judge decided to continue the case to grant plaintiffs the ability to amend their pleadings.
He further stated that the timing of the government’s termination just one day after an injunction was filed brings “serious concerns whether these actions are designed to serve the court’s ruling.”
Author: Kienan Briscoe
