A federal appeals court overturns Seattle’s sanctuary policy, dealing a blow to local efforts to shield undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement.

At a Glance

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules King County’s order blocking ICE deportation flights unlawful
• Decision affirms federal authority in immigration enforcement, challenging sanctuary city policies
• Ruling cites violations of federal contracts and the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause
• Case highlights ongoing tension between local jurisdictions and federal immigration laws

Federal Court Overturns Seattle’s Sanctuary Policy

In a significant victory for federal immigration enforcement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that King County, Washington, cannot block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using a Seattle-area airport for deportation flights. This decision overturns a 2019 executive order signed by King County Executive Dow Constantine, which aimed to resist federal immigration operations at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field.

The court’s ruling affirms a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States, which had been previously decided by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in 2023. This latest decision marks a significant setback for sanctuary jurisdictions opposing federal immigration enforcement and could have far-reaching implications for similar policies across the country.

Appeals court blasts sanctuary policy that blocked ICE from using King County International Airport https://t.co/AaOYHkxhkL pic.twitter.com/pDxekZetsq

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 3, 2024

Legal Basis for the Ruling

The Ninth Circuit Court found that King County’s policy violated multiple legal principles. Judge Daniel A. Bress, writing for the court, stated that the order breached both a contract between the county and the federal government regarding Boeing Field and the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

“The 2019 order signed by King County Executive Dow Constantine violates a contract between the county and the federal government concerning Boeing Field, as well as the US Constitution’s supremacy clause,” Judge Bress wrote in the court’s opinion.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the county’s policy discriminated against federal immigration operations, violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. This doctrine prevents state and local governments from directly regulating or discriminating against the federal government’s ability to carry out its functions.

Impact on Federal Immigration Enforcement

The overturning of King County’s sanctuary policy has immediate practical implications for ICE operations. Previously, the agency had been forced to relocate its operations from Boeing Field to Yakima Air Terminal, increasing costs and reducing enforcement efficiency. This ruling paves the way for ICE to resume using the more conveniently located King County International Airport for deportation flights.

“The Executive Order therefore discriminatorily burdens the United States specifically because of federal immigration operations, based on the County’s disagreement with federal policy. This discrimination, plain on the face of the Order, contravenes the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” the judge wrote.

The case is part of a broader trend of courts rejecting state-led efforts to block ICE from using local detention facilities. This decision reinforces the federal government’s authority in matters of immigration enforcement, potentially influencing similar sanctuary policies in other jurisdictions across the United States.

Reactions and Future Implications

The ruling has elicited mixed reactions from various stakeholders. King County officials expressed disappointment with the decision, arguing that it undermines local values without addressing the actual impact of federal immigration operations. Amy Enbysk, a spokesperson for King County, stated that the ruling allows “a raw assertion of federal power to overcome an expression of local values even absent any actual impact.”

On the other hand, supporters of stricter immigration enforcement view the decision as a necessary reaffirmation of federal authority. Matthew O’Brien, an immigration expert, emphasized that while states cannot be forced to cooperate on immigration matters, they also cannot intentionally obstruct federal enforcement efforts. This ruling clarifies the boundaries between federal and local authority in immigration policy, potentially setting a precedent for future legal challenges to sanctuary policies nationwide.