Customs, Border and Immigration NewsIn the CourtsUS News

Clinton-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order On Refugee Resettlement

A federal judge in Maryland ruled on Wednesday to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order allowing states and localities to choose whether they wish to accept refugees.

Peter Messitte, a judge on the Maryland District Court, issued a temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s order giving states and counties the option to decline refugees on an annual basis. In his 31-page memorandum opinion, Messitte said that the refugee-resetlment groups that sued “are clearly likely to succeed in showing, that, by giving states and local government veto power over the resettlement of refugees within their borders, the order is unlawful,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Messitte — who was appointed to his position in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton — went on to say that giving authority to the states to decide whether to accept refugees “flies in the face of clear congressional intent” as it conflicts with the Refugee Act.

The ruling marks a major victory for the group of faith-based organizations that filed the lawsuit, and now places a hurdle in front of the Trump administration just days before the order was supposed to go into effect. The State Department had originally established a January 21 deadline for local officials to declare their positions on the resettlement program.

Trump issued an executive order in September of last year that gave authority to state and local governments over whether they would want to accept refugees. The directive was the administration’s latest move to restrict the flow of refugees into the country. The administration had already set the 2020 refugee cap at 18,000, the lowest number since the U.S. refugee program began in 1980.

A vast majority of governors — both Republican and Democrats — have so far chosen to keep accepting refugees. To date, 42 governors have notified the White House that they will keep taking them in, including 19 GOP governors.

However, Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbot became the first to take Trump up on his offer. Abbott on Friday announced that Texas would not accept refugees for the year, saying that, since Texas has accepted more of them than any other state for years, it was time for other state governments to step up.

Messitte’s ruling nullifies Abbott’s decision for the time being, but the case will continue to play out in court.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


  1. Judges like this one should be seen and not heard. We don’t need anymore refugees. We already have plenty of people sleeping on sidewalks and under overpasses and we have a housing crisis. And our governor wants to keep building more houses to put the overflowing population and that means more taxes. Besides, our experience with refugees is not so good and they never seem to go back home.

  2. Activist Clinton judge just another member of the resistance, whatever happened to separation of powers? I doubt very much whether our founding fathers intended to give these judges the jurisdiction to reach into another branch of government and ride herd on them. Perhaps these activist judges should be ignored, thank them for sharing but the executive branch disagrees and will proceed.

    What is this judge going to do, call out the National Guard to enforce his opinion?

  3. Mary Geiger judges such as these should be REMOVED for OBSTRUCTION by not following their Oath of Office!!

  4. Gov Gregg Abbptt of Texas just signed the State’s “Refusal of Refugees”. Texas, alone accounts for almost 20% of the re-locations of asylum seekers. I understand that 40 other states have also opted out of program. This was explained in the article above.

    Not covered was the fact that thee “non-profit” organizations receive LARGE amounts of money for their ‘participation’. Several years ago the head of such a group in Minnesota reportedly had a salary of 250,000 a year….now how charitable is that ??

Back to top button