Passim

Issues › Asylum and refugees

Suspension of refugee admissions and processing

In effect

Admissions suspension in effect

Order restoring resettlement services for admitted refugees still stands

On March 5, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed against the suspension of refugee admissions and processing and the defunding of overseas operations, and reversed those parts of the preliminary injunctions. It affirmed them only as they require the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements needed to provide resettlement services to refugees already admitted. The case continues in the district court on an amended complaint.

Status as of
October 31, 2026
Dockets checked
November 3, 2026

The policy

Executive Order 14163 (January 20, 2025) suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including the admission of approved refugees and decisions on refugee applications, leaving entry to case-by-case exceptions. The State Department then suspended and terminated program funding, including cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies. Refugees, U.S. residents petitioning for family members, and the resettlement agencies HIAS, Church World Service and Lutheran Community Services Northwest challenge the order and the funding cuts in Pacito v. Trump, a class action in the Western District of Washington.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

  1. 1No ruling
  2. 2No ruling
  3. 3No ruling
  4. 4No ruling
  5. 5No ruling
  6. 6No ruling
  7. 7No ruling
  8. 8No ruling
  9. 9Mixed
  10. 10No ruling
  11. 11No ruling
  12. DCNo ruling
  • Ruled against the policy
  • Upheld the policy
  • Mixed or split
  • No merits ruling tracked
CourtRulingCaseNote
9th Cir. Preliminary-injunction appeal: affirmed in part, reversed in partPreliminary ruling Pacito v. TrumpNo. 25-1939 · Mar 5, 2026 Challenges to the admissions and processing suspension unlikely to succeed (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)); ending domestic resettlement agreements likely unlawful. Judge Lee dissented in part.

Who's covered

  • Certified class · Pacito v. Trump

    The Reception & Placement Subclass, certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The only relief the Ninth Circuit left in place requires the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements needed to provide the resettlement services described in 8 U.S.C. 1522 to refugees admitted to the United States; the court said the government may end particular agreements once another mechanism provides those services. The relief the other two subclasses won against the admissions and processing suspension was reversed.

    all refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders resettled to the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement as of January 20, 2025, the issuance date of the Refugee Ban Executive Order, or who currently are, or will be, resettled in the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement

    Certification order

For practitioners

  • The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs hadn't shown they're likely to succeed on claims that Executive Order 14163 exceeds the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and the Refugee Act, including its suspension of decisions on refugee applications, or that defunding overseas processing was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal concerned preliminary injunctions, so these are likelihood-of-success rulings, not a final judgment. [1]
  • The court held that ending the cooperative agreements for domestic resettlement services was likely contrary to law (8 U.S.C. 1522) and arbitrary and capricious, and rejected the government's Tucker Act and unreviewability arguments. It said the government may end the agreements once it has another way to provide the 1522 services. It also held the injunctions comply with Trump v. CASA because the district court had certified a class. Judge Lee dissented on jurisdiction and the funding merits. [1]
  • On August 3, 2026, the district court replaced fixed dates with a schedule that runs from the later of its ruling on the government's protective-order motion or the government's answer to the first amended complaint; bench trial begins 306 days after that date. The court denied the protective-order motion on August 4. A government motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a second motion to stay discovery (filed August 21) were pending in the latest filings reviewed. [1][2][3][4]
  • According to the government's August 11 reply brief, the amended complaint adds claims about case-by-case exception decisions, implementation of the fiscal year 2026 refugee Presidential Determination, and the application of Proclamation 10949 to refugees. That is the government's description of the claims. [1]
  • Separate USCIS actions affecting refugees already in the United States (an adjustment hold, re-vetting, and an October 14, 2026 rule shortening the time to answer a notice of intent to terminate refugee status) are challenged in Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans v. Edlow, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14817. A ten-day administrative stay of that rule and of certain notices runs through November 6, 2026. [1]

In plain language

In January 2025 the President paused the U.S. refugee program. Refugees waiting abroad, even people who were already approved, generally can't come to the United States, and most refugee applications aren't being decided. In March 2026 a federal appeals court said the President likely has the power to do this, so the pause stays in place for now. The same court said the government must restore the agreements that pay for basic resettlement help for refugees who have already arrived, unless it finds another way to provide that help. The lawsuit continues in a federal court in Seattle. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you or your family.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. District court adopted a contingent discovery and trial schedule

    Pacito v. Trump · 9th Cir. · Source

  2. Ninth Circuit narrowed refugee-admissions injunction but preserved domestic resettlement relief

    Pacito v. Trump · 9th Cir. · Source

  3. District court set bench trial for September 8, 2026

    Pacito v. Trump · 9th Cir. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since September 12, 2025, each with the order behind it.

  • Admissions suspension in effect. Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunctions pending appeal except the domestic resettlement relief; it affirmed that split on March 5, 2026 Source

Cases (1)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
Pacito v. TrumpNo. 25-1939 · Lead case · Class action9th Cir.District court replaced fixed trial dates with a contingent scheduleAug 3, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation