The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions, marking a significant interpretation of presidential powers over immigration policy. This decision comes as part of the case Pacito v. Trump, where the court acknowledged the president’s broad discretion to restrict entry of non-citizens under federal immigration laws, specifically 8 USC § 1182(f). The court concluded that this statute grants the president the ability to suspend the entry of “all aliens or any class of aliens” if deemed detrimental to US interests.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was largely influenced by the precedent set in Trump v. Hawaii, which underscored the president’s extensive discretion in immigration-related decisions. However, the ruling did not wholly side with the executive branch. The appellate court partially upheld the district court’s preliminary injunctions concerning refugees and domestic resettlement organizations. While permitting suspension of admissions, the court affirmed that dismantling domestic programs mandated by Congress was not permissible.
The court found that the government failed to meet its obligations under 8 USC § 1522, which requires providing “reception and placement” services to refugees when Congress allocates funds to such programs. Additionally, the court noted violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The government, by ending cooperative agreements with resettlement organizations without a “reasoned explanation” and ignoring “serious reliance interests,” acted beyond its administrative reach.
This ruling was a response to a lawsuit filed by refugee resettlement organizations against a January 2025 executive order signed by President Trump, aiming to suspend refugee resettlement programs. The district court in Washington had previously granted a preliminary injunction for maintaining aspects of the program, which the government appealed, asserting the suspension was within presidential authority.
The outcome of this ongoing legal saga could eventually find its way to the US Supreme Court if either party seeks further review of the appellate court’s judgment.