Republicans can’t stop winning. It’s looking like it’s going to be a good four years under Trump.
And this massive federal court ruling throws Democrats’ plans directly in the trash.
A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major decision on Friday, affirming that the U.S. government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants and override local attempts to obstruct federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating in their jurisdictions.
Judges Daniel Bress, Michael Hawkins, and Richard Clinton issued the ruling in a 29-page decision, upholding the district court’s summary judgment in the case.
According to The Center Square, the case stemmed from a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine in Washington. The order aimed to block ICE from utilizing a local Boeing airfield for deportation operations. The outlet explained:
Constantine’s order prohibited King County International Airport from supporting “the transportation and deportation of immigration detainees in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, either traveling within or arriving or departing the United States or its territories.”
The Boeing airfield, located near Seattle, a self-declared “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, is also close to ICE-Seattle’s operational hub. The Trump administration sued King County in 2019, arguing that Constantine’s order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the administration cited the clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a “World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement,” which guaranteed federal access to the airfield.
The Trump administration prevailed in the initial lawsuit, prompting King County to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Instrument of Transfer agreement explicitly states:
“The United States of America . . . through any of its employees or agents shall at all times have the right to make nonexclusive use of the landing area of the airport at which any of the property transferred by this instrument is located or used, without charge.”
In his opinion, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hawkins and Clinton, found that Constantine’s order interfered with the Instrument of Transfer clause by obstructing ICE operations at the airfield. The order imposed the following:
Among other things, King County officials shall “[t]ake appropriate actions, consistent with the County’s federal obligations, to minimize County cooperation with, facilitation of, and permission for, operations associated with transportation of immigration detainees.”
In addition, and importantly, County officials shall Ensure that all future leases, operating permits, and other authorizations for commercial activity at King County International Airport contain a prohibition against providing aeronautical or nonaeronautical services to enterprises engaged in the business of deporting immigration detainees (except for federal government aircraft), to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.
As a result, ICE contractors faced discrimination, forcing the agency to move its operations from King County to Yakima, Washington. This relocation introduced security risks and additional expenses.
The court ruled that the King County order “improperly regulated the way in which the federal government transported noncitizen detainees by preventing ICE from using private FBO contractors at Boeing Field, and on its face discriminated against the United States by singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.”
The court also detailed how the order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine under the Supremacy Clause:
In recognition of the federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 596 U.S. at 838. It does so by proscribing “state laws that either ‘regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals’ (e.g., contractors).”
Judge Bress concluded, “We hold that the Executive Order violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine and that the anticommandeering and market participant doctrines do not apply.
King County’s Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO breached the Instrument of Transfer and violated the Supremacy Clause. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
It remains unclear if King County will escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.
