# Appeals Court Stops Judge From Forcing More Refugees Into U.S. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1CWcZ0qqfQ Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/v1CWcZ0qqfQ Generated: 2026-03-12T21:09:04.66+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court decision, specifically stopping the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14163, which suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), while also stopping the suspension of funding for refugee resettlement services, though Judge Lee dissented on two points regarding jurisdiction over organizational plaintiffs' claims and the scope of statutory discretion. **Key Points:** - The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's preliminary injunctions prohibiting enforcement of Executive Order No. 14163 and suspending funding for USRAP. - Judge Lee dissented on two points: lack of jurisdiction over organizational plaintiffs' claims seeking reinstatement of funding, and the belief that the United States has discretion over funding refugee resettlement services. - The court addressed claims related to the suspension of refugee admissions and the withholding of resettlement funding, citing that the executive order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). - Judge Lee specifically warned against judicial resistance, stating that courts cannot stand athwart, yelling "stop" just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies they deem unwise. - The court noted that the district court's order suspending refugee admissions was in deep tension with the Ninth Circuit's emergency motion panel's stay orders. - The district court had previously allowed plaintiffs' lawyers (NGO and Perkins Coie) to review court-ordered survey responses from thousands of refugees who might qualify for admission. - The ruling allowed refugees whose travel was canceled before January 20, 2025 (before the EO went into effect) to potentially be eligible for admission if their plans were rescheduled. ![Screenshot at 00:20: Andrew Branca introduces himself as a Scotus Bar Attorney while displaying the document being analyzed, which lists the parties involved in the case PACTO v. TRUMP.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/v1CWcZ0qqfQ/00-00-20.jpg) **Context:** The video features Andrew Branca, a Scotus Bar Attorney, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling concerning President Trump's suspended Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) via Executive Order No. 14163. The analysis focuses on the court's decision to partially overturn injunctions aimed at blocking the suspension of refugee admissions and funding for resettlement services, detailing the reasoning of the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion from Judge Lee. ## Detailed Analysis Andrew Branca analyzes a Ninth Circuit decision that affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's preliminary injunctions against Executive Order No. 14163, which suspended the USRAP and funding for resettlement. The majority opinion held that the district court correctly enjoined the suspension of refugee admissions but erred in enjoining the withholding of funding for resettlement services, finding that the injunction regarding funding was outside the district court's jurisdiction because those claims were essentially contract claims seeking money from the federal government, which must be heard by the Court of Federal Claims. Judge Lee provided a dissenting opinion, agreeing with Judge Bybee's analysis regarding the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1182(f) to suspend refugee admissions but dissenting on two points: jurisdiction over organizational plaintiffs' funding claims and the discretion the US has over funding services. Lee strongly criticized the district court's actions, suggesting it reflected a recent trend of judicial resistance, warning that courts must not be seduced by the temptation of judicial resistance, stating that district courts cannot stand athwart, yelling "stop" just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies they deem unwise. The discussion also covered Judge Whitehead's preliminary injunction against the executive order, which expanded the categories of refugees who could be admitted, including those whose travel was canceled before January 20, 2025, provided they had 'confirmable travel plans' by January 20, 2025. Finally, Branca points out that the dissent emphasizes the constitutional structure where Congress is unelected and unaccountable, contrasting it with the judiciary's role as neutral arbiters of the law. ### Ninth Circuit Ruling Summary - Panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's preliminary injunctions against EO 14163 (suspending USRAP) - Plaintiffs successfully blocked refugee admission suspension but failed on funding injunction due to jurisdiction issues for organizational claims. ### Judge Lee's Dissent - Agrees with Judge Bybee on Presidential authority to suspend admissions - Dissents on two points: jurisdiction over organizational funding claims (must go to Court of Federal Claims) and US discretion on funding services. ### District Court Actions - Judge Whitehead preliminarily enjoined the EO's suspension of refugee admissions, including for those with confirmed plans by Jan 20, 2025 - The court allowed plaintiffs' lawyers (NGO and Perkins Coie) to review survey responses from thousands of refugees. ### Judicial Philosophy - Judge Lee warns against judicial resistance, citing Alexander Hamilton's view in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary is the 'weakest' branch, having 'neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment' and lacking legitimacy over Congress because they are unelected and unaccountable. ![Screenshot at 00:00: Andrew Branca begins his analysis, seated in an office setting with legal books visible on the right shelf.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/v1CWcZ0qqfQ/00-00-00.jpg) ![Screenshot at 00:40: A PDF document titled 'Pactio v. Trump' is displayed, showing the 'SUMMARY' section indicating the panel affirmed and reversed in part.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/v1CWcZ0qqfQ/00-00-40.jpg) ![Screenshot at 01:18: Branca gestures while explaining that the opinion overturns the order to keep bringing in refugees but requires continued funding payments.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/v1CWcZ0qqfQ/00-01-18.jpg) ![Screenshot at 04:47: The document highlights Judge Lee's dissent, noting that the judiciary is the 'weakest' branch, having 'neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.'](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/v1CWcZ0qqfQ/00-04-47.jpg)