The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just made a major decision. It sided with the federal government on a big immigration issue. The court ruled that the government can deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally, even if local authorities object.
What Happened?
This case began with an executive order in King County, Washington. In April 2019, County Executive Dow Constantine issued a controversial directive. It stopped county officials from allowing ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) charter flights to use a local airport near Seattle. This airport, known as King County International Airport, is next to a major ICE base.
Constantine’s order explicitly prohibited the airport from supporting deportation flights. He said federal deportations raised “human rights concerns” and clashed with the county’s values. He also cited issues like family separation and racial profiling.
The Trump administration didn’t agree. It argued that Constantine’s order was illegal. It sued King County, claiming the order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and a World War II-era agreement, known as the Instrument of Transfer. This agreement gives the federal government rights to use the airport.
The Court’s Ruling
The Ninth Circuit panel unanimously sided with the federal government. Judge Daniel Bress wrote the 29-page ruling, joined by Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton. They agreed that Constantine’s order violated the law.
The court said the order discriminated against the federal government. By targeting ICE operations, it treated the federal government unfairly. The panel also found that Constantine’s directive increased ICE’s costs and disrupted its operations. This created a “concrete and individualized” harm, they ruled.
Key Points from the Ruling
- Supremacy Clause Violation: The judges said Constantine’s order improperly regulated how the federal government transports detainees. It also singled out ICE for unfavorable treatment.
- Standing to Sue: The federal government proved it was harmed. ICE’s costs went up, and its ability to operate was restricted.
- Instrument of Transfer: The court upheld this agreement, saying it allowed the federal government to use the airport.
King County’s Stance
King County describes itself as a “sanctuary county.” Constantine argued that the region values inclusivity and human rights. He opposed deportations, claiming they harm families and lead to unsafe situations in other countries. His order was part of a broader effort to challenge federal immigration enforcement.
Federal Response
The Department of Justice pushed back hard. It sued in February 2020, during the Trump administration. The DOJ argued that Constantine’s order obstructed federal enforcement and violated the Instrument of Transfer agreement. A district court agreed and ruled in favor of the federal government. King County appealed, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision.
What’s Next?
This ruling strengthens federal authority in immigration enforcement. Local governments cannot block deportation operations, no matter their stance. The decision is also a significant win for ICE and for the Trump-era policies that prioritized mass deportations.
Federal deportation efforts now have a clear legal precedent. Local objections, even from sanctuary regions, cannot stand in the way.