On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order immediately suspending the entry of all refugees under USRAP and freezing decisions on pending refugee applications. In accordance with that order, agency officials suspended all congressionally appropriated funding for refugee resettlement partners and refused to provide reimbursement for already-performed USRAP work. The spending freeze has thrown refugees and the groups that support them into limbo, leaving refugees stranded and without support, including Afghan and Iraqi allies who worked with the United States military and are now in grave danger in their home countries.

A group of refugees and nonprofits that assist refugees challenged the suspension of processing and funding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and the district court granted them a preliminary injunction. The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit and asked it to grant an emergency stay of the injunction pending appeal.

On March 14, 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Trump administration’s emergency motion for a stay. Our brief made two principal points.

First, the Framers gave Congress control of appropriations and spending to guard against the risk of a tyrannical president. They took pains to deny the President the sweeping powers that the King of England had historically enjoyed, such as the power to spend without Parliament’s approval. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was a clear consensus that the legislative branch would have the power of the purse. In the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Framers granted Congress the affirmative power to raise revenue and to spend funds, while the Appropriations Clause limits the executive, stating that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The text of the Constitution is clear that the executive branch cannot make an end-run around the legislative process, including in the realm of spending and appropriations.

Second, centuries of practice and precedent confirm that the President and his subordinates have no authority to defy the will of Congress by refusing to execute laws requiring the disbursement of federal funding. In the 1838 decision Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court held that the executive branch had no inherent constitutional authority to rescind appropriated funds—a point the Court reiterated 150 years later in Train v. City of New York, rejecting President Nixon’s effort to rescind environmental protection funding. Lower courts across the country have similarly rejected presidential efforts to pause or cancel federal funding in defiance of Congress.

In sum, our brief argued that the Ninth Circuit should leave in place the district court’s order blocking President Trump’s unlawful attempt to usurp Congress’s role in appropriations and spending.

On March 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the emergency motion for a stay.