By: Eoghan Olkeriil Ngirudelsang
KOROR, Palau (Feb. 17, 2026) — The Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau has denied an emergency request by the Senate and two citizens to block the government from implementing a migration agreement with the United States, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to meet the legal standard required for a temporary restraining order.
The dispute centers on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed Dec. 24, 2025, by President Surangel S. Whipps Jr. and executive officials. The agreement contemplates the possible transfer of up to 75 third-country nationals from the United States to Palau, subject to case-by-case approval by Palau.
In a 29-page order issued Monday, the court described the broader disagreement as political but said the legal claims must be evaluated under established standards for preliminary injunctive relief. To obtain an injunction before the case is decided, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without court intervention, that the balance of harms favors them, and that the public interest supports relief.
The court found the plaintiffs did not carry that burden.
On irreparable harm — which the court treated as the most important factor — the judge said the Senate and the individual plaintiffs offered only speculative or generalized injuries, including alleged harm to the “social fabric” and public confidence in government. The court ruled those claims were unsupported by evidence or legal authority. It also noted that the Senate had already delegated substantial immigration authority to the Executive Branch under existing statutes.
It signals that if the Senate disagrees with how the Executive uses delegated authority, the remedy may be legislative amendment — not judicial intervention.
The court rejected the argument that the MOU constitutes a treaty requiring legislative ratification, finding the agreement appears nonbinding and framed in discretionary language. The order emphasized that nothing in the MOU creates enforceable legal obligations under domestic or international law.
While the court expressed some concern about whether implementation of the MOU could conflict with existing immigration regulations — particularly provisions addressing individuals with final deportation orders — it said the plaintiffs did not make a sufficiently strong showing to justify the “extraordinary and drastic” remedy of a preliminary injunction.
The court also quashed subpoenas issued by the plaintiffs seeking testimony about potential transferees and additional agreements, ruling that the information sought was not relevant to the legal standards governing the motion.
The denial does not end the case. The underlying lawsuit, which alleges 17 separate legal violations, will continue. For now, however, the Executive Branch is not barred by court order from proceeding under the MOU, subject to existing law.