In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the authority of the U.S. government to deport illegal immigrants. This ruling comes in the wake of a case initiated by officials in Washington state, challenging the government's deportation powers.
As reported by The Post Millennial, the case originated in April 2019 when Democratic King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order. This order directed county officials to prevent fixed base operators at King County International Airport, located near Seattle, from aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charter flights used for deporting illegal immigrants. The order specifically prohibited "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," given the airport's proximity to an ICE-Seattle base of operations.
In response to this order, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in February 2020, arguing that Constantine's directive was illegal. They contended that it obstructed federal immigration enforcement, violated the Supremacy Clauses intergovernmental immunity doctrine, and breached a World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which permitted the federal government's use of the airport. The Trump administration requested a permanent injunction against the order.
The district court sided with the Trump administration, granting a summary judgment that Constantines order discriminated against ICE contractors while permitting others to use the airfield, and violated the Instrument of Transfer. However, King County, which had declared itself a "sanctuary county," appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Representing Constantine, his lawyers argued that the county "has acted decisively to become more inclusive, removing barriers to affordable housing, transit, health, economic opportunity and promoting strong childhood development for everyone." They further claimed that the county distinguished its "region apart as a leader in protecting the rights of all people in our communities and continues to not tolerate discrimination, harassment, expressions of hate, or any behavior intended to promote fear, intimidation, or isolation."
However, the Ninth Circuit panel, comprising Judge Daniel Bress, Judge Michael Hawkins, and Judge Richard Clinton, affirmed the district courts summary judgment. They ruled that Constantine's order violated the Supremacy Clause and the Instrument of Transfer agreement. The court dismissed Constantines argument that federal "deportations raise deeply troubling human rights concerns which are inconsistent with the values of King County, including separations of families, increases of racial disproportionality in policing, deportations of people into unsafe situations in other countries, and constitutional concerns of due process."
The court also held that the U.S. government, under Article III, could sue and "had two related concrete and individualized injuries." The first was "the inability to conduct the charter flights which has increased ICEs operational costs constituted a de facto injury that affected the United States in a particularized, individual way" and "an imminent risk of future injury from the Executive Order." The second injury was that, due to Constantines order, the federal governments injuries "were fairly traceable" and "are likely, as opposed to merely speculative."
The court further found that Constantines order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine as it "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." This ruling underscores the authority of the federal government in matters of immigration and deportation, reaffirming the supremacy of federal law over local directives.
Login