Case: Pacito v. Trump
2:25-cv-00255 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Filed Date: Feb. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On February 10, 2025, three refugee resettlement agencies and nine individuals filed this putative class action against President Donald J. Trump, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 14163, titled "Realigning the United States Refugee Admission Program," which barred entry into the United States for all refugees and suspended decisions on refugee applications, both for an indefinite period.
The named individual plaintiffs sought to represent a proposed class of individuals whose ability to (a) be resettled in the United States, (b) reunite with family members in the U.S., and/or (c) access legally mandated post-resettlement services had been disrupted by the Executive Order, including (1) individuals currently undergoing processing for admission to the United States as refugees; (2) U.S.-based individuals petitioning for family reunification under the Follow-to-Join (FTJ) program; and (3) refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders who have been resettled in the United States and are within their first 90 days post-resettlement.
The plaintiffs argued that the Executive Order violated the Refugee Act of 1980, which created a comprehensive framework for admitting and placing refugees within the United States. They claimed that the order exceeded presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and separation of powers principles. The plaintiffs also challenged the executive’s action as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to block enforcement of the order, restoration of refugee processing and funding, and a declaratory judgment that the order was unlawful and unconstitutional. The case was assigned to District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead.
On February 25, 2025, the court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the defendants from enforcing the Executive Order while the case proceeds. Judge Whitehead granted the provisional relief because the plaintiffs demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their case by showing that Executive Order “has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will.” The government immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit and sought a stay pending the appeal from the District Court and the Ninth Circuit.
The day following the preliminary injunction order, February 26, 2025, the State Department terminated all cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies to provide reception, placement, and support services to newly arrived refugees and Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders. Furthermore, the State Department terminated the cooperative agreements of settlement partners for United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) processing. After the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include these new developments, the plaintiffs moved for another preliminary injunction, arguing that the new developments make it "all but impossible" for the government to comply with the court's preliminary injunction.
On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for class certification in the District Court. They asked the court to certify three subclasses, including a refugee and family member subclass, a reception and placement subclass, and a follow-to-join petitioner subclass.
On March 24, 2025, the District Court ordered a second preliminary injunction ordering the reinstatement of the terminated cooperative agreements. 772 F.Supp.3d 1204. The court enjoined the defendants from enforcing or implementing the termination of USRAP-related funding provided to resettlement partners through their cooperative agreements with the State Department and ordered the defendants to reinstate the aforementioned cooperative agreements to their pre-February 2025 status.
On March 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit partially granted the government's emergency motion to stay the District Court’s first preliminary injunction. 2025 WL 1325305. The Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction in all respects except as it applies to individuals who had been conditionally approved for refugee status by the USCIS before January 20, 2025 (the date that EO 14163 was issued). That same day, the government appealed the court's second preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. (A few days later, the District Court denied a stay of the second preliminary injunction during the pendency of that appeal; the court held to that result on a subsequent motion for reconsideration.)
In light of the overlapping facts and legal issues, on March 26, 2025, the government filed a consented motion in the Ninth Circuit to consolidate the appeals of both preliminary injunctions granted by the District Court.
On April 3, 2025, the plaintiffs asked the District Court for an order (1) requesting the defendants to show cause why the District Court should not conclude that they are in violation of the first preliminary injunction and (2) enforcing its first preliminary injunction order as it applies to individuals who were conditionally approved for refugee status before January 20, 2025. The District Court entered an enforcement order on April 11, finding “Government has not complied with the First Injunction as it applies to individuals conditionally approved for refugee status before January 20, 2025.” 2025 WL 1397613. Accordingly, the District Court ordered a number of compliance steps, requiring the government to resume refugee processing and report on the schedule for compliance.
On April 21, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a clarification order that narrowed the category of refugees protected by the first preliminary injunction (that is, those for whom the preliminary injunction was not stayed, pending appeal) to those individuals who, on or before January 20, 2025, met three specific conditions: (1) the individual had an approved refugee application authorizing Customs and Border Protection to admit the individual “conditionally as a refugee upon arrival at the port within four months of the date the refugee application was approved,” 8 C.F.R. § 207.4; (2) the individual was cleared by USCIS for travel to the United States; and (3) the individual had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States. 2025 WL 1325306.
In the District Court, the parties continued to disagree about the scope of the unstayed parts of the first preliminary injunction; the government argued that under 200 individuals were required to be resettled, and the plaintiffs said the number was in the thousands. On May 5, the District Court ruled, finding (as the plaintiffs had urged) that the Ninth Circuit's third criterion "applies to all refugees who, as of January 20, 2025, had received confirmation of travel arrangements to the United States through some USRAP instrumentality, regardless of when that travel was scheduled to occur, and regardless of whether that travel was self-arranged or arranged by the International Organization of Migration (IOM). 2025 WL 1295660." The court asserted that the government had no capacity to cirucmvent their judicial order as it had been written, and they had a duty to restore refugee resettlement services immediately.
The next day, the government sought clarification; in response, on May 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit further refined its three-part test for determining which refugees remain protected by the preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit explained that its prior order “should be interpreted narrowly, on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito.”
The District Court then revisited its May 5 Compliance Framework, which had taken a categorical approach to processing thousands of refugee applicants. On May 15, the District Court rescinded its framework order and explained that case-by-case determinations would be required; it moved towards appointment of a Special Master to assist, asking the parties to submit their nominations for that role and their suggested procedures. Following extensive briefing and argument, the District Court issued a framework on July 14, 2025, to clarify the process for making individual determinations. They found that the complexity of the issues did not warrant the appointment of a specialized expert and appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson to assist with case-by-case determinations.
A few days later, on July 17, 2025, the government filed an emergency motion to clarify, amend, or stay the District Court’s April 11 enforcement order that required them to resume refugee processing. In response, on July 19, the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the District Court’s July 14 order (to be enforced until the circuit court decided on the emergency motion).
The District Court granted the plaintiff’s class certification in its entirety on July 30, 2025, recognizing the three subclasses requested. On the same day, the District Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs adequately pled their claims and established the Court’s jurisdiction.
On September 2, 2025, the government filed a motion to stay discovery in the District Court, arguing that they’d face undue hardship were they to engage in discovery before the Ninth Circuit resolved the government’s appeals of the District Court preliminary injunctions.
After hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit issued an interim opinion on September 12, 2025, that would function as a stay pending appeal and further action. The court 1) vacated their prior stay orders (a July administrative stay and a March stay), 2) stayed the two PIs that the District Court issued on February 28 and March 24 in their entirety, and 3) denied the government’s July 17 emergency motion. 768 F.Supp.3d 1199.
Due to the government shutdown on October 1, 2025, the government moved for a stay of proceedings until appropriations to the Department of Justice could be restored. Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on October 10, arguing that the shutdown did not warrant a stay of the entire case, only an extension of the deadline for the parties’ joint status report and discovery plan. By November 19, the motion was withdrawn in light of the end of the shutdown.
On March 5, 2026, The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing part of the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court largely upheld the President’s authority to suspend the refugee admissions program but agreed in part with the district court that certain agency actions were unlawful. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in arguing that the executive order exceeded the President’s statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and the Refugee Act, reasoning that the President has broad discretion to suspend refugee entry and is not required to continue processing applications during such a suspension. However, the court found that some related agency actions were reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act and distinguished between lawful and unlawful conduct. It upheld the State Department’s decision to halt overseas processing and funding as reasonable given the suspension of admissions, but it agreed that cutting off domestic resettlement services for already admitted refugees likely violated statutory obligations and was arbitrary and capricious, particularly because the government failed to provide adequate reasoning or consider reliance interests. As a result, the court affirmed the injunction only insofar as it required continued support for admitted refugees, while reversing it in most other respects. 2026 WL 620449.
While the Ninth Circuit decision was pending, discovery continued in the district court. On February 6, 2026, the district court issued a notice scheduling a bench trial for September 8, 2026.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/21/2025)
Emma Vayda (7/16/2025)
Ayah Elsheikh (10/8/2025)
Ben Hefter (10/13/2025)
Sofia Yoder (3/21/2026)
Related Cases
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69626101/parties/pacito-v-trump/
Alagesan, Deepa (Washington)
Alp, Mrs. Mevlude
Alp, Mevlude Amina (Washington)
Aston, Esme (Washington)
Attorney, Jason Kyle
Alp, Mevlude Amina (Washington)
Cooper, Laurie Ball (Washington)
Grano, Kimberly Robin (Washington)
Hauptman, Megan McLaughlin (Washington)
Hawley, Jonathan Patrick (Washington)
Jr, Pedro Sepulveda (Washington)
Keaney, Melissa S. (Washington)
Lankarani, Shireen (Washington)
Nomkin, Joel Wayne (Washington)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69626101/pacito-v-trump/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 4:14 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three faith-based resettlement refugee resettlement agencies and a proposed class of individuals whose ability to (a) be resettled in the United States, (b) reunite with family members in the U.S., and/or (c) access legally mandated post-resettlement services has been disrupted, including (1) individuals currently undergoing processing for admission to the United States as refugees; (2) U.S.-based individuals petitioning for family reunification under the Follow-to-Join (FTJ) program; and (3) refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders who have been resettled in the United States and are within their first 90 days post-resettlement.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
United States of America
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:25-cv-00255
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-01313
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-01939
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Temporary foreign workers program
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Case Summary of Pacito v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46093/ (last updated 3/21/2026).