By CatholicVote | Created at 2024-12-04 01:05:57 | Updated at 2024-12-04 19:03:29
17 hours ago
CV NEWS FEED // A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the U.S. government can deport illegal immigrants and overrule local authorities who try to block federal departments such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating in regional areas.
Judges Daniel Bress, Michael Hawkins, and Richard Clinton issued the decision in a 29-page ruling and affirmed the summary judgment of the district court that first heard the case.
As The Center Square reported, the court case focused on a 2019 executive order filed in King County, Washington, by County Executive Dow Constantine. The order directed local authorities to deter and prohibit ICE from using a county Boeing airfield to deport illegal immigrants, the outlet recounted:
Constantine’s order prohibited King County International Airport from supporting “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.”
The airfield in question is located near Seattle, which local officials have controversially declared to be a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, and near ICE-Seattle’s center of operation.
In 2019, the Trump administration sued King County over Constantine’s order, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. In particular, the Trump administration cited the clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a “World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement allowing the federal government to use the airport in King County.”
The Trump administration won the first lawsuit, which caused King County to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: COURT RULES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, EVEN IF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OBJECT
A 3-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government can deport people residing in the U.S. illegally, even if local authorities try… pic.twitter.com/cE9wFN7vEu
The Instrument of Transfer clause states that “the United States of America . . . through any of its employees or agents shall at all times have the right to make nonexclusive use of the landing area of the airport at which any of the property transferred by this instrument is located or used, without charge.”
The ruling penned by Bress, with Hawkins and Clinton concurring, noted that the executive order issued by Constantine impacted the Instrument of Transfer clause as it attempted to thwart ICE operations from the airfield.
Constantine’s order stated:
Among other things, King County officials shall “[t]ake appropriate actions, consistent with the County’s federal obligations, to minimize County cooperation with, facilitation of, and permission for, operations associated with transportation of immigration detainees.” In addition, and importantly, County officials shall Ensure that all future leases, operating permits, and other authorizations for commercial activity at King County International Airport contain a prohibition against providing aeronautical or nonaeronautical services to enterprises engaged in the business of deporting immigration detainees (except for federal government aircraft), to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.
As a result, ICE contractors were discriminated against and ICE had to shift its operations from King County to Yakima, Washington, leading to security concerns and new operational costs.
The court held that Constantine’s order in King County “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.”
The ruling also outlined how Constantine’s order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine within the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
In recognition of the federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 596 U.S. at 838. It does so by proscribing “state laws that either ‘regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals’ (e.g., contractors).”
“We hold that the Executive Order violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine and that the anticommandeering and market participant doctrines do not apply,” asserted Bress. “King County’s Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO breached the Instrument of Transfer and violated the Supremacy Clause. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
It has not been announced if King County will appeal to the Supreme Court.
