• U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead criticized the Trump administration’s enforcement of its 2025 refugee travel ban, warning that hundreds or even thousands of eligible refugees may have been unlawfully excluded despite an injunction. Attorneys argue the administration preemptively canceled refugee travel before the executive order took effect, violating federal law and court orders.

SEATTLE, WA (TDR) — A federal judge signaled Monday that a formal compliance order is imminent in a case challenging the Trump administration’s suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), following new claims that hundreds of refugees were wrongfully excluded in violation of court rulings.

At a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Jamal Whitehead told attorneys they could “expect an order from the court by the end of the week.” The case centers around a group of refugees—led by a Congolese asylum-seeker known as Pacito—who are suing over the Trump administration’s latest June 2025 travel ban and its effect on their resettlement.

Court Reviews Preemptive Travel Cancellations

Attorney Jonathan Hawley of Perkins Coie said that despite Judge Whitehead’s February injunction, the Trump administration applied the travel ban early—canceling flights even before the executive order took effect.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“We know of at least one Afghan refugee scheduled to travel on January 16, 2025, whose flight was canceled without explanation,” Hawley said. “That refugee was never rebooked.”

Only 160 refugees are currently recognized under the injunction. Hawley said that number should be significantly higher given the normal flow of over 100,000 refugee admissions annually. “It’s not just probable,” he argued, “but likely that proactive cancellations occurred in the lead-up to the order.”

DOJ Defends Narrow Interpretation

Department of Justice attorney David Kim argued that the 2025 ban is “materially different” from Trump’s prior order. But both Hawley and Judge Whitehead dismissed the claim.

“I have the text of these two carve-outs side by side,” Hawley said. “I struggle to find any meaningful difference.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

“There’s an uncanny resemblance there,” Whitehead agreed.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s policy violates the 1980 Refugee Act, which outlines statutory protections for refugee processing under the Immigration and Nationality Act. They’ve asked the court to mandate a compliance framework that accounts for all affected refugees—not just the 160 identified.

Was the Trump administration justified in preemptively canceling refugee travel, or did it overstep legal bounds? Join the conversation below.

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10