The president signed an order in January to suspend resettlement for refugees.
On March 24, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to revy a refugee resettlement agreement that had been terminated by authorities, finding that extraordinary relief was guaranteed as legal cases progressed.
A preliminary injunction is set to remain in place until further order from the court or unless the High Court stays there.
A few hours later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began termination of all contracts for domestic receptions for resettled refugees, and all but one contract for the disposal of refugees overseas. All notices of termination stated that the agreement was determined to “no longer affect the agency’s priorities.”
Related Stories
The plaintiffs indicated that termination of the contract violated the requirements and opposed the establishment of a permanent system of parliament for hospitalization and resettlement of refugees known as USRAP, Whitehead said.
“The government enjoys considerable discretion in the management of USRAP, but that discretion does not extend to abandoning statutory duties or preventing the program from working effectively. The sudden termination of the sudden contract of a decades-old agreement by the government would likely constitute arbitrary, whimsical action that must be put aside,” he said. “Unless rescued immediately, refugees were stranded abroad, families were separated and resettlement agencies were closed.”
Government lawyers told the judge that the dispute was contractually belonging to the Federal Claims Court. Even if the regular court system has jurisdiction, the lawyers said termination is legal.
Whitehead said that the plaintiffs claim their rights from statutory requirements rather than contractual promises, and that the relief they sought – the vacatur of the termination of the contract cannot be provided by the federal claims court to provide appropriate relief and that jurisdiction rests on the court.
“The government argues that these terminations are merely contractual disputes beyond the jurisdiction of this court, but this argument fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the plaintiff’s claim,” the judge said. “As pleading for contractual remedies, the plaintiffs ask that statutory duties be enforced through the inherent fair powers of this court, which calls for Congress to be specifically strengthened in the Administrative Procedure Act by “issuing all necessary and appropriate processes” to the court to “issuing all necessary and appropriate processes” to prevent irreparable injuries. ”
