The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously that the federal government retains the authority to deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally, even over the objections of local governments. The three-judge panel’s decision affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a 2019 executive order by King County, Washington, violated federal law.
In April 2019, King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order aimed at restricting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field, near Seattle. The directive prohibited fixed base operators (FBOs) at the airport from servicing ICE charter flights used to transport and deport individuals in federal custody.
Constantine’s order aligned with King County’s self-designation as a “sanctuary county,” which seeks to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The order explicitly banned airport support for transporting immigration detainees, framing the move as part of broader efforts to uphold the county’s values of inclusion and human rights.
“The deportation process raises deeply troubling human rights concerns,” Constantine argued at the time, pointing to issues such as family separations, racial disproportionality in law enforcement, and questions about due process.
The Trump administration responded to Constantine’s order by filing a lawsuit in February 2020. The Department of Justice argued that the executive order obstructed federal immigration enforcement, violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and breached an Instrument of Transfer agreement under the Surplus Property Act of 1944.
The Instrument of Transfer agreement, which dates back to World War II, grants the federal government the right to use Boeing Field for official purposes, including deportation operations. The Justice Department sought to nullify the order and secure a permanent injunction to prevent similar restrictions.
A district court sided with the federal government, granting summary judgment and ruling that King County’s actions unlawfully discriminated against ICE contractors while allowing other entities to operate freely. Constantine appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit panel, led by Judge Daniel Bress, upheld the lower court’s ruling in a detailed 29-page opinion. Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton concurred.
The court found that Constantine’s order violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal operations. Specifically, the judges ruled that the executive order:
- Discriminated Against the Federal Government: The order “improperly regulated the way in which the federal government transported noncitizen detainees” by preventing ICE from utilizing private FBO contractors at the airport.
- Increased Federal Costs: The inability to use the airport forced ICE to reroute flights, raising operational expenses and creating logistical challenges. The court deemed this a concrete and individualized injury to the federal government.
- Violated the Instrument of Transfer Agreement: The agreement explicitly allowed the federal government to use the airfield, making the county’s restrictions unlawful.
The judges concluded that King County’s order was ideologically driven and lacked a legal basis to obstruct federal deportation efforts.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision reinforces the federal government’s supremacy in immigration enforcement, even in jurisdictions that oppose such policies. It also underscores the legal limitations of sanctuary policies that directly interfere with federal operations.
For King County, the ruling marks a setback in its efforts to resist federal deportation initiatives. Constantine has defended his order as consistent with the county’s commitment to inclusivity and human rights, but the courts have repeatedly found that local governments cannot unilaterally impede federal operations.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between the federal government and sanctuary jurisdictions, which have proliferated in recent years as a response to stricter immigration policies under the Trump administration. Sanctuary policies often aim to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting local cooperation with ICE.
However, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling emphasizes the boundaries of these policies, particularly when they conflict with federal laws or agreements.
While the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a victory for federal immigration authorities, it also raises questions about the future of sanctuary policies in the U.S. Local governments may continue to seek ways to resist federal enforcement, but this ruling underscores that such efforts must comply with constitutional and legal frameworks.
As sanctuary policies remain a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration, this case may serve as a precedent for future legal battles between local jurisdictions and the federal government. For now, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling reaffirms the federal government’s authority to carry out deportations, regardless of local opposition.
