Courts order Trump to restore refugee funding but do not bar church raids

President Trump’s early executive orders froze the refugee resettlement process and cut off funds for agencies that contracted with the government to resettle refugees.

Religious organisations working with immigrants secured a favourable court ruling in one case involving the processing of those already approved for refugee status, but lost another case involving church properties.

Judge Jamal Whitehead refused a request from the Trump administration that he reconsider a previous ruling ordering the government to process and admit those who had been conditionally approved for refugee status before Trump took office on 20 January, and to reinstate funding for the agencies working to resettle those refugees.

Trump’s executive orders in his first days after his return to the White House froze the refugee resettlement process and cut off funds for agencies that contracted with the government to resettle refugees.

Several religious groups filed suit, including the Jewish refugee assistance agency Hias and Church World Service. The US bishops’ conference did not join the suit. The groups’ brief alleged that the Trump administration lawyers “now admit that they are not complying and do not intend to comply with either of this court’s preliminary injunctions”.

The judge agreed: “The government must continue processing, admitting, and providing resettlement support to them – and funding [United States Refugee Admissions Programme] partners to the extent necessary to do so – consistent with this court’s previous order.”

In a separate court decision, US District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled against religious plaintiffs seeking to ban immigration enforcement agents from conducting raids on church property.

The Trump administration rescinded a previous policy that barred such enforcement actions in “safe spaces” such as churches, schools and hospitals. The plaintiffs argued that fear of being detained might prevent migrants from getting medical assistance, attending classes or worshipping in church.

Additionally, the religious groups argued that the First Amendment protects the religious organisations from such government intrusion on their property and that the threat of raids had resulted in lower church attendance.

The judge rejected that argument: “That evidence suggests that congregants are staying [at] home to avoid encountering [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in their own neighbourhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk.” She said there was no evidence of churches being specifically targeted for raids.

US bishops ‘heartbroken’ to end government partnership

Where have all the ‘illegal’ migrants to the US gone?

Stay updated — add us as a preferred news source on Google: