A federal appeals court has ruled that a King County, Washington, order 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.
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 (FBOs)—the companies that provide essential services like 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 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 (DOJ) 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 the order violated the Instrument of Transfer, 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 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.
The Epoch Times has reached out to King County officials with a request for comment on the ruling.
The ruling was made weeks before the incoming Trump administration is set to take office and begin a deportation operation.
