On Monday, a federal judge in the Western District of Washington issued an order setting forth a “compliance framework” for the Trump administration to follow in order to adhere to his previously entered preliminary injunction. That framework will require the administration to begin processing roughly 12,000 refugees by next Monday.
It’s the latest development in a series of back-and-forth court rulings and moves that have begun to seem a bit like a Ping-Pong match.
A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to immediately resettle some 12,000 refugees into the U.S. under a court order that partially blocks President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at halting the refugee admissions program.
U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a 2023 appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued the order despite the Trump administration saying during a hearing last week that it should only have to process 160 refugees into the country and would likely appeal any order requiring thousands to be admitted.
Bear with me while I retrace the chronology of this one:
- 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 22, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a clarification as to its prior order.
That brings us to this recent article, describing that April 22nd order from the 9th Circuit and noting that it basically put the lower court (Whitehead) in check.
READ MORE: New: 9th Circuit Puts District Court in Check After It Holds Up Trump Admin Immigration Efforts
Now, in his “compliance framework” order, Judge Whitehead appears to be letting his snark flag fly — both as to the administration and the 9th Circuit’s clipping of his wings. (Okay, it’s mostly reserved for the administration, but it’s hard not to read some “tone” into his comments regarding the appellate higher-ups, too.) The sticking point involves 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.”
Here are some of the choice comments from Whitehead:
Plaintiffs advocate a plain-meaning interpretation of this phrase, under which “arranged and confirmable travel plans” refers, simply, to arranged and confirmable travel plans.
The Government, however, would have the Court believe that when the Ninth Circuit used this phrase, it secretly embedded a qualifier requiring that travel must have been scheduled to occur within two weeks of January 20, 2025.
…
The Government’s interpretation is, to put it mildly, “interpretive jiggerypokery” of the highest order. See King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 506 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting). It requires not just reading between the lines, but hallucinating new text that simply is not there. 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. The Ninth Circuit is capable of imposing temporal limitations when it intends to do so. That it did not do so here must be construed as deliberate. And it goes without saying that 12,000 is not the “tens of thousands of individuals” the Ninth Circuit implied to be problematic.
…
This Court will not entertain the Government’s result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says. The Government is free, of course, to seek further clarification from the Ninth Circuit. But the Government is not free to disobey statutory and constitutional law—and the direct orders of this Court and the Ninth Circuit—while it seeks such clarification. The Government’s obligation to process, admit, and provide statutorily mandated resettlement support services to the Injunction-Protected Refugees is immediate. Likewise, the Government’s obligation to restore funding, information, and operational support to its USRAP partners as necessary to process, admit, and provide resettlement services to these individuals is also immediate.
We can expect the administration to appeal this order and/or seek further clarification from the 9th Circuit on it because, as noted above, Whitehead’s interpretation forces the government to begin immediately admitting roughly 12,000 versus the 160 who had advanced further along in the travel/resettlement process.
As always, we’ll continue to follow along and provide updates as to any developments of note.
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
