The Palau Senate and two private citizens have asked the Supreme Court to immediately halt a government plan to accept up to 75 deportees from the United States, arguing the arrangement violates the Constitution, immigration laws and the authority of the national legislature.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to stop President Surangel Whipps Jr and executive agencies from issuing visas or entry permits to the deportees while the case is being decided.
The case challenges a 24 December 2025, announcement by the president that Palau would accept third-country nationals — people the United States cannot return to their home countries — in exchange for financial assistance.
In their filing, the Senate and the two individuals argue the relocation plan is “unconstitutional, unlawful under Palau statutes, and harmful to Palau’s constitutional order and social fabric.”
Ahead of the court hearing scheduled for 12 February, the plaintiffs issued a subpoena ordering President Whipps and a cabinet minister to appear and bring documents and communications related to the deportee programme.
The notice was delivered less than 24 hours before the hearing.
The court granted a motion to quash the subpoena, finding it overly broad and unreasonable.
In its order, the court said the subpoena was “facially overbroad” and imposed an “unreasonable timeline and undue burden.”
President Whipps criticised the request, saying the Senate’s legal counsel was just making money off the Senate.
“The subpoena was ridiculous and unreasonable. We received the subpoena at 3 pm and the court was scheduled for 9:30 am the next day,” he said.
The lawsuit was filed by the Senate of the Olbiil Era Kelulau (OEK) and two individual plaintiffs. The defendants are President Whipps, Minister of State Gustav Aitaro and the Ministry of Finance, all in their official capacities.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an emergency order under Rule 65(b) to prevent any deportees from entering Palau until the legal issues are resolved.
The lawsuit argues the president does not have the authority to create the deportee arrangement without approval from the OEK.
Under the Constitution, the legislature holds power over immigration and treaty matters. The plaintiffs say the agreement with the United States is essentially a treaty or treaty-like arrangement that must be ratified by both houses of the OEK.
They argue no law authorizes Palau to accept deportees in exchange for payment, making the programme an unauthorised executive action.
The complaint also raises concerns that the programme could create a permanent population of non-citizens who cannot be deported. Because Palauan citizenship generally requires Palauan ancestry, the plaintiffs say the deportees and their children would remain long-term residents without a clear legal status.
In addition, the lawsuit challenges the creation of a review body under a presidential directive to handle persecution claims, arguing the executive branch cannot create new adjudicative powers without legislative approval.
The plaintiffs also claim the administration is effectively committing Palau to international refugee principles, including the non-refoulement standard, even though Palau has not ratified the relevant international treaties and the OEK has declined to adopt them.
Much of the case focuses on alleged violations of Palau’s immigration statutes and regulations.
The plaintiffs argue there is no existing visa category for involuntary deportees and that tourist visas — which officials have publicly discussed — are intended only for voluntary visitors and do not allow employment.
They also claim the deportees would likely fail entry requirements, including proof of onward travel and financial self-support, and could become public charges. The filing states that housing is being prepared at Palau Community College dormitories.
The lawsuit further argues that certain immigration waivers cannot legally be granted in exchange for payments from a third party and that the president cannot direct or take over powers assigned by law to the Minister of Finance or the Director of Immigration without following formal regulatory procedures.
Additional claims allege the deportees may not meet health certification requirements for entry and would not qualify for work-based permits under existing labour-import rules.
One count characterises the programme as meeting the legal definition of human trafficking, arguing the deportees face coercive circumstances and that Palau would receive payment tied to their relocation and employment.
To obtain a temporary restraining order, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success, risk of irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest favour immediate action.
The filing argues that allowing deportees to enter before the case is decided would cause irreversible harm because they may be difficult or impossible to remove later.
The plaintiffs also contend the program undermines the constitutional authority of the OEK and could impose long-term costs related to housing, health care and education in a small island nation.
They say delaying implementation would not harm the government because negotiations with the United States could continue while the legal issues are resolved.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the temporary restraining order will determine whether the government can move forward with issuing entry permits while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds.
The case comes as the proposed agreement has drawn public debate over national sovereignty, immigration policy and the long-term social and economic impact of accepting involuntary deportees in a country of about 18,000 people.
