Background
Plaintiffs, including refugees and resettlement organizations, challenged Executive Order No. fourteen thousand one hundred sixty-three, which suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program and related funding. The district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the order. The Government appealed, arguing the President acted within his statutory authority and that the agency actions were unreviewable.
The court’s reasoning
The panel applied the Winter factors for preliminary injunctions. It concluded Plaintiffs failed to show they were likely to succeed on the merits regarding the President’s authority to suspend admissions under Section eleven hundred eighty-two of Title eight of the United States Code. However, the panel rejected the Government’s argument that the defunding decisions were unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found the Refugee Act specific enough to rebut the presumption of unreviewability. Regarding the merits, the panel held that defunding overseas operations was not arbitrary, but terminating cooperative agreements for domestic services was arbitrary and capricious because the Government failed to provide reasoned explanations or consider reliance interests.
The wisdom of the policy choices made by the President is not a matter for our consideration.
Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993)
The dissent
District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling stop just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise.
Kenneth K. Lee
What it means going forward
The preliminary injunction is vacated in large measure, allowing the suspension of refugee admissions to proceed. However, the government must reinstate terminated cooperative agreements for domestic resettlement services and provide reasoned explanations for any future terminations.