WASHINGTON—President Trump has made a proclamation barring the entry of all refugees into the United States (with any exceptions to be decided case-by-case). Following a lawsuit by refugee resettlement organizations, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals showing the lawfulness of Trump’s action.
In proceedings in the lower court, a California federal district court had issued a nationwide injunction against the refugee freeze. But the Ninth Circuit stayed or suspended that injunction pending appeal, meaning that the refugee freeze remains in effect until the appeal is decided.
In that appeal, IRLI shows that the freeze should be upheld on the merits. In a statute, Congress has given the President the power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens, or all aliens, if he thinks doing so is in the national interest. And when President Trump, in his first term, issued his travel order barring entry from countries with unreliable procedures for identifying terrorists, the Supreme Court recognized his broad, virtually unreviewable authority to act as he saw fit under this statute.
Refugees are, of course, a class of aliens. And, since many of them turn out to be criminals or terrorist threats, Trump’s view that barring their entry is in the national interest is certainly rational— with rationality being the most that a reviewing court can demand, according to the Supreme Court.
“This attempt by the district court to rule the nation by vetoing presidential actions it disagrees with cannot stand,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “We don’t have to take any refugees, and whether we do so is a matter of policy, not law. The law lets Trump block their entry if he sees fit, and we hope the court permanently vacates this already-stayed injunction.”
The case is Pacito v. Trump, Nos. 25-1313, 25-1939 (Ninth Circuit).
