District Judge Blocks Trump's Refugee Resettlement Pause, Saying It 'Crossed the Line'
“I cannot ignore Congress’ detailed framework for refugee admissions and the limits it placed on the president’s ability to suspend the same,” said Judge Jamal Whitehead.

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's January executive order that indefinitely suspended refugee admissions into the United States. The order contained no guarantee that refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) would resume—only that the suspension would last until "the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States."
"The president has substantial discretion…to suspend refugee admissions, but that authority is not limitless," U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead said yesterday. "I cannot ignore Congress' detailed framework for refugee admissions and the limits it placed on the president's ability to suspend the same."
The January order, Whitehead concluded, "has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will."
Congress established the USRAP via the 1980 Refugee Act. Since then, the program has resettled over 3.3 million refugees in the United States. A refugee under U.S. law is someone who is physically outside the United States, is "of special humanitarian concern to the United States," and has faced or may face persecution "due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group," according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Refugee vetting is rigorous and lengthy; the average case took approximately four years to process as of March 2023, the Migration Policy Institute reported in October.
Trump's order nonetheless warned that the U.S. "lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees," in a way "that protects [Americans'] safety and security." It cited chaos in towns like Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Ohio, as well as big cities like New York City and Chicago, as justification for the order. (Importantly, those places largely experienced significant influxes of other migrants, such as asylum seekers, not the refugees the executive order sought to keep out.)
Several refugee resettlement groups filed suit, arguing that "implementing agencies arbitrarily and without explanation failed to follow even the paltry restraints in the Order." Those agencies "immediately canceled scheduled travel for refugees," the lawsuit says, leaving refugees in limbo. One plaintiff, a man from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who was scheduled to travel to the U.S. with his family on January 22, "had sold all of the family's possessions and given up their rental house in preparation," explains the suit. "He then learned that their travel was canceled."
A Justice Department lawyer "indicated to the judge that the government might quickly appeal," reported the Associated Press. Courts have blocked several Trump immigration moves, including his order reinterpreting birthright citizenship and the administration's policy to conduct immigration raids in places of worship. However, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., "refused to immediately block the Trump administration's actions" in another lawsuit concerning refugee resettlement "brought by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops," the A.P. noted. "That case faces another hearing Friday."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Crossed the line, eh? Now they get to cross the border.
I wonder why DACA didn't cross the line. Or all that student loan "forgiveness" which directly violated Supreme Court rulings. Or pardons for unknown crimes.
Oh yeah, good point. Democrats did it first so it's ok. Thanks for reminding me.
Eat a bullet already.
Is this how old, defeated, obsolete right wingers tend to solve their problems? Keep on dreaming, gramps.
How many socks will you be wearing today Sarc?
Very clever!
Why do mouthbreathing right-wing dead ends of evolution always seem to assume that anyone is exercised over what they deem clever? Your expiration is the only thing that will afford you a moment of relevance: to make your betters chuckle briefly.
Why do retarded Marxist cunts like you continue to run their mouths after being slapped down day after day?
Oh, look, I’ve answered your question with a question. Oopsie!
Hey RC, I found a little ditty your dad wrote about your mom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVRjjxuch8
No one clicks on your retarded links you drunk Cunt.
Except this doesn’t really cross a line. This is just another activist judge who ignores the law as part of their Marxist activism. Just like you.
Democrats did it first so it's ok.
Principled people agree standards should be applied consistently. But since he has no principles sarc ridicules the very concept.
Sarcs own truth, "Oh yeah, good point. It's only ok if Democrats do it. Thanks for reminding me."
Well, the judge IS a Biden appointee. God knows his track record of competent hires is terrible.
I mean, he did appoint the dumbest SCOTUS justice in history.
I wonder if that dumb bitch has finally managed to figure out what a woman is?
Why wasn’t the he question followed up with: Are you a woman? And then, How do you know?
Missed opportunity!
Indeed.
The January order, Whitehead concluded, "has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will."
Oh come on. It's not like the president answers to Congress. They pass laws and then the president does whatever he wants. Demanding he enforce the will of Congress is lawfare of the highest order. This judge needs to be impeached, disbarred, and sued for defamation and fraud.
Cite?
They pass laws and then the president does whatever he wants.
This is what the court ruled when Obama unilaterally granted amnesty to illegals in violation of the law and fully supported by you and the other leftists. As usual laws are strict and inviolate to non-leftists and more general guidelines for leftists.
Let's play a game, who said: "The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me."
A. Joe Biden
B. Donald Trump
C. Zachary Taylor
D. Richard Nixon
E. Joe Biden's ventriloquist
This is the same judge who would demand all American taxpayers to pay for housing, medical treatments and feeding of illegal aliens.
>the program has resettled over 3.3 million refugees in the United States.
1980. 3.3 million since 1980.
There were millions entering illegally during the Biden administration. So either refugees massively increased in central and South America - *after* the end of the death squads - or the program is incredibly incompetent at 'resettling' and can just as well go away.
This is, of course, not a comment on the president's authority to manage that program.
More TrumpLaw.
U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Seattle-based appointee of former President Joe Biden.
More Leftist judicial activism.
You don't believe that the President needs to follow the law?
You think DACA followed the law? Or student loan hijinks?
Once again, thanks for pointing out that it's ok because Democrats did it first.
And drunky thought nothing of it.
You didn't complain then, you should not complain now.
Once again, thanks for pointing out that it's ok because Democrats did it first.
Why do you keep saying this?
It WASN'T okay when Dems did it, or when the left did it.
That's why they're putting out all these EOs that reset it to what it was before the Dems fucked everything up.
They're using the mechanism that was used to fuck things up to unfuck things.
They're not continuing to do them--they're obliterating them.
So you admit that Biden‘s presidency was largely a lawless one? Good. That’s a start.
When I first heard about DACA, I did not think it was legal. But I looked up the statutes that they used to justify it and I changed my mind. I think DACA was legal.
DACA was struck down by the courts.
As far as I can tell, most of the courts have upheld DACA. None of the ones that ruled against DACA survived appeals. SCOTUS ruled in favor of DACA.
DACA was an EO. Live by the EO, die by the EO, Molly.
Live by EO, die by EO is fair. I hope trump continues to gravely overstep his authority in the overt ways he does. I want to see restrictions to executive power.
DACA was literally stopped. Those who had passes through were granted status, but they ordered the program shut down for all new applicants as it was illegal.
How are you so fucking ignorant?
It's degenerates like you and Kirkland that make people ignorant to the cause they think they represent.
Sark, you’re a degenerate drunk. And even worse than that. So really, fuck off.
Of course you do, leftists have no principles so they support whatever they think will increase their power. As such they believe Executive Orders by Dems which conflict with immigration law are nevertheless legal while claiming Executive Orders by Reps which violate immigration law are not. Since leftists corrupted the legal system most judges are the same.
Which law is Trump not following Tony?
Read the article, or have someone else read it to you.
Cite it, dipshit.
Expecting Trump to follow the law is lawfare. Where have you been for the last four years?
I’d expect Trump to follow the law far more than I’d expect you to be sober.
Assuming you're correct when you say that sarcasmic tends to be drunk around the clock, this is not a high bar to pass. And I don't expect seething, expired, out-competed right wingers such to pass any high bars, especially when it comes to following the law.
It's hard to follow the law when they won't tell you what law you broke that they convicted you for. But you like Soviet style justice, don't you Sarc.
What rule did he violate? Did you even read this article? The judge claimed Trump nullified the program. He did not. He suspended it. Two different things completely. Trump gave his reasoning. It falls under the confines of the law.
The judge, like you, is a leftist activist.
Trump is following the law,as will be determined on appeal.
Lol
Refugees:
What did you do last week?
So, Fiona is now Against crossing lines?
Crosspost
Reason is slow to post breaking news.
https://www.mitrade.com/insights/news/live-news/article-3-661376-20250226
D.O.G.E employees all resign in defense of federal system integrity
Source Cryptopolitan
Feb 25, 2025 19:35
In a hilarious and ironic turn of events, a full walkout of twenty-one civil service employees rocked the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) on Tuesday, as workers cited political interference, mass firings, and threats to federal integrity as reasons for their sudden departure.
The group, made up of engineers, product managers, and designers, submitted a joint resignation letter posted on WetheBuilders.org, saying that they refused to participate in the dismantling of essential public services.
The letter, addressed to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, accused D.O.G.E. of “compromising core government systems”, removing technical experts without warning, and creating a hostile work environment under the leadership of Elon Musk.
“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” the letter read. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments at the United States D.O.G.E. Service.”
Those were all Obama hold overs in digital services you fucking retarded leftist shit. Lol.
1) Seethe moar.
2) I didn't include an opinion, just the story bite. I figured to expand the usual echo chamber of the same dozen or so old farts regurgitating the same copypasta they have been regurgitating for probably years on this site.
They were all Obama holdovers, dingbat. You do realize the MSM is trying to make this molehill into a mountain, and you bought it, gullible moron.
How is laughing at you seething?
You posted easily disproven lies. Lol.
God damn. Act blue hires the dumbest people.
The old farts will go extinct soon. And the younger generations that have been damaged by their narcissism and their wealth-gatekeeping might find a better way when they wake up to the reality that trump cares as much about them as the democrats.
Liberty Belle, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
Excellent, the trash took itself out.
The program is working.
Good riddance! Fewer to fire.
Move in some competent people from another Dept.
Most of those “essential public services” are plainly unconstitutional. Fuck ‘em.
miss-post.
.
Best damn thing you’ve said all day.
The January order, Whitehead concluded, "has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will."
Isn't it interesting this line moves just exactly enough for Obama to violate immigration law but manages to return to block Trump.
^THIS +10000000000000...
A point that is completely undeniable and continues to go on over and over again.
"District Judge Blocks Trump's Refugee Resettlement Pause, Saying It 'Crossed the Line'."
Wrong answer, judge.
It was the illegals who "crossed the line" when they invaded our country illegally.
Just when you thought the leftists on the bench couldn't get any more stupid...
Hi, Fiona. You opened your borders yet?
The Judge, "directive *appeared* to amount to a “nullification” of federal law."
Well. It *appears* to me, that what one appears to see that isn't there, is NOT a very honorable premise for a judge to use.
So if this judge's ruling gets overturned on appeal, does that mean the judge violated the law?
A refugee under U.S. law is someone who is physically outside the United States, is "of special humanitarian concern to the United States," and has faced or may face persecution "due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group," according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
... :/ Let's look closer at that:
which refugee resettlement groups said caused some would-be immigrants to be stranded overseas after selling their belongings before their scheduled travel to the U.S. was abruptly canceled.
So, they're being persecuted and oppressed, but they still found time to sell all their stuff - AND find buyers in their "persecuted and oppressed" society - and now they're "stranded" overseas, despite ostensibly no longer being in their country of origin.
So, are they refugees or are they applying for citizenship? Funny how folks on the left keep trying to blur those two terms. Also, if they're no longer in their native country of persecution - exactly what's the issue? If they sold all their goats and sand and beads to make it all the way to, say, France - what's so bad about their time in France? At least until we can determine that they're American enough to be allowed in America?
Refugee vetting is rigorous and lengthy; the average case took approximately four years to process
A four year layover in France? Gosh, how would one ever cope.
(Importantly, those places largely experienced significant influxes of other migrants, such as asylum seekers, not the refugees the executive order sought to keep out.)
Hey Fiona - once the numbers start hitting like seven, eight, nine digits - the distinctions kinda stop mattering.
Just, in case you're wondering why gibbering retard Kamalamadingdong isn't President right now.
Suspend verb
2
a
: to cause to stop temporarily
suspend bus service
b
: to set aside or make temporarily inoperative
suspend the rules
3
: to defer to a later time on specified conditions
suspend sentence
4
: to hold in an undetermined or undecided state awaiting further information
suspend judgment
What part of the English language does this judge understand?