max headroom
2024-12-02 21:49:19 UTC
County in Washington State Cannot Block ICE Deportation Flights, Appeals Court
Rules
A federal court has struck down King County's ban on ICE deportation flights,
citing federal supremacy and breach of contractual obligations.
A federal appeals court has ruled that an order in King County, Washington,
barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using a Seattle-area
airport to deport illegal immigrants from the country is unlawful, affirming a
lower court's summary judgment and clearing the way for the removals to
continue.
Judge Daniel A. Bress of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote
in the Nov. 29 opinion that a 2019 executive order issued by King County
Executive Dow Constantine that prohibited the ICE deportation flights was
unlawful. The ruling identified two primary legal violations: discrimination
against federal operations under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution
and breach of a World War II-era instrument of transfer agreement governing the
airport's use.
Bress wrote that the executive order's flight ban "discriminatorily burdens the
United States" in the enforcement of federal immigration law and that this
"discrimination, plain on the face of the Order, contravenes the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine." Rooted in the supremacy clause, the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine protects federal government operations from
discriminatory or obstructive actions by state and local governments.
The court also found that through Constantine's directive, King County violated
its contractual obligations under the instrument of transfer agreement, which
granted the federal government the right to use the King County International
Airport, commonly known as Boeing Field.
The dispute dates back to April 2019, when Constantine issued an executive order
that explicitly opposed ICE's deportation operations. The directive instructed
airport officials to ensure that future leases and operating agreements with
fixed-base operators-the companies that provide essential services such as
fueling and aircraft maintenance-contained provisions prohibiting them from
servicing ICE flights.
Constantine justified the order by citing the county's disagreement with federal
immigration policies, stating that the flights raised "deeply troubling human
rights concerns which are inconsistent with the values of King County,"
including family separations and deportation of people into unsafe conditions in
other countries. The order effectively halted deportation flights at the
airport.
In response to the order, the Department of Justice filed suit in February 2020,
arguing that the directive unlawfully obstructed federal immigration enforcement
and violated the terms of the airport's transfer to King County based on an
instrument of transfer agreement under the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The
government sought to nullify the executive order and secure a permanent
injunction against its enforcement.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington sided with the
federal government, granting summary judgment in its favor. The court held that
the order discriminated against federal operations by singling out ICE flights
while allowing other users unrestricted access to Boeing Field. It also found
that the order violated the instrument of transfer agreement, which required
King County to allow federal use of the airport for nonexclusive purposes.
King County appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the
executive order was a lawful exercise of local authority as a market participant
and did not violate federal law. The county claimed that it was acting to
address legitimate safety, liability, and operational concerns stemming from
ICE's
activities.
However, the Ninth Circuit rejected King County's arguments, affirming the lower
court's ruling. Writing on behalf of the panel, Bress noted that the executive
order unlawfully targeted federal operations and discriminated against ICE's use
of the airport based on opposition to federal immigration policy. The appeals
court also determined that King County violated its contractual obligations
under the instrument of transfer agreement.
The Epoch Times reached out to King County officials with a request for comment
on the ruling but did not get a response by publication time.
The ruling was made weeks before the incoming Trump administration is set to
take office and begin a deportation operation.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/county-in-washington-state-cannot-block-ice-deportation-flights-appeals-court-rules-5768774
Rules
A federal court has struck down King County's ban on ICE deportation flights,
citing federal supremacy and breach of contractual obligations.
A federal appeals court has ruled that an order in King County, Washington,
barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using a Seattle-area
airport to deport illegal immigrants from the country is unlawful, affirming a
lower court's summary judgment and clearing the way for the removals to
continue.
Judge Daniel A. Bress of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote
in the Nov. 29 opinion that a 2019 executive order issued by King County
Executive Dow Constantine that prohibited the ICE deportation flights was
unlawful. The ruling identified two primary legal violations: discrimination
against federal operations under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution
and breach of a World War II-era instrument of transfer agreement governing the
airport's use.
Bress wrote that the executive order's flight ban "discriminatorily burdens the
United States" in the enforcement of federal immigration law and that this
"discrimination, plain on the face of the Order, contravenes the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine." Rooted in the supremacy clause, the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine protects federal government operations from
discriminatory or obstructive actions by state and local governments.
The court also found that through Constantine's directive, King County violated
its contractual obligations under the instrument of transfer agreement, which
granted the federal government the right to use the King County International
Airport, commonly known as Boeing Field.
The dispute dates back to April 2019, when Constantine issued an executive order
that explicitly opposed ICE's deportation operations. The directive instructed
airport officials to ensure that future leases and operating agreements with
fixed-base operators-the companies that provide essential services such as
fueling and aircraft maintenance-contained provisions prohibiting them from
servicing ICE flights.
Constantine justified the order by citing the county's disagreement with federal
immigration policies, stating that the flights raised "deeply troubling human
rights concerns which are inconsistent with the values of King County,"
including family separations and deportation of people into unsafe conditions in
other countries. The order effectively halted deportation flights at the
airport.
In response to the order, the Department of Justice filed suit in February 2020,
arguing that the directive unlawfully obstructed federal immigration enforcement
and violated the terms of the airport's transfer to King County based on an
instrument of transfer agreement under the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The
government sought to nullify the executive order and secure a permanent
injunction against its enforcement.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington sided with the
federal government, granting summary judgment in its favor. The court held that
the order discriminated against federal operations by singling out ICE flights
while allowing other users unrestricted access to Boeing Field. It also found
that the order violated the instrument of transfer agreement, which required
King County to allow federal use of the airport for nonexclusive purposes.
King County appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the
executive order was a lawful exercise of local authority as a market participant
and did not violate federal law. The county claimed that it was acting to
address legitimate safety, liability, and operational concerns stemming from
ICE's
activities.
However, the Ninth Circuit rejected King County's arguments, affirming the lower
court's ruling. Writing on behalf of the panel, Bress noted that the executive
order unlawfully targeted federal operations and discriminated against ICE's use
of the airport based on opposition to federal immigration policy. The appeals
court also determined that King County violated its contractual obligations
under the instrument of transfer agreement.
The Epoch Times reached out to King County officials with a request for comment
on the ruling but did not get a response by publication time.
The ruling was made weeks before the incoming Trump administration is set to
take office and begin a deportation operation.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/county-in-washington-state-cannot-block-ice-deportation-flights-appeals-court-rules-5768774