Trump’s 1st term deportation plans in Washington state unanimously upheld by federal court

According to The Center Square, in April 2019, Democratic King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order directing county officials to prohibit fixed base operators at King County International Airport near Seattle from supporting the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement charter flights used to deport illegal immigrants.

Constantine’s order prohibited “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,” as the airport is next to an ICE-Seattle base of operations.

In response, the Department of Justice sued in February 2020, arguing Constantine’s order was illegal because it obstructed federal immigration enforcement, violated the Supremacy Clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine, and a World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 that allowed the federal government to use the airport. The Trump administration asked the court for a permanent injunction against the order.

A district court agreed with the Trump administration. The court granted summary judgment ruling that Constantine’s order discriminated against ICE contractors while allowing others to use the airfield, and violated the Instrument of Transfer.

However, King County, which declared itself a “sanctuary county,” appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Constantine’s lawyers argued the county “has acted decisively to become more inclusive, removing barriers to affordable housing, transit, health, economic opportunity and promoting strong childhood development for everyone.”

They also claimed the county set its “region apart as a leader in protecting the rights of all people in our communities and continues to not tolerate discrimination, harassment, expressions of hate, or any behavior intended to promote fear, intimidation, or isolation.”

The 29-page ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel, written by Judge Daniel Bress, with judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton concurring, affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that the order violated the Supremacy Clause and the Instrument of Transfer agreement.

The court called Constantine’s argument ideological that federal “deportations raise deeply troubling human rights concerns which are inconsistent with the values of King County, including separations of families, increases of racial disproportionality in policing, deportations of people into unsafe situations in other countries, and constitutional concerns of due process.”

Additionally, the court held that the US government under Article III could sue and “had two related concrete and individualized injuries.”

The first was “the inability to conduct the charter flights – which has increased ICE’s operational costs – constituted a de facto injury that affected the United States in a particularized, individual way” and “an imminent risk of future injury from the Executive Order.”

The second was that, as a result of Constantine’s order, the federal government’s injuries “were fairly traceable” and “are likely, as opposed to merely speculative.”

The court also found that Constantine’s order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine because it “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.”

In a statement, Constantine's office told The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, “The Executive Order disapproved in the decision was already replaced by a new order nearly 21 months ago. The new order ensures the public’s ability to monitor ICE practices at the airport and precludes the use of any King County resources for ICE purposes beyond the bare minimum compelled by the federal courts. The Ninth Circuit’s decision allows a raw assertion of federal power to overcome an expression of local values even absent any actual impact. Although King County disagrees with the court’s decision, it will of course follow the court’s dictates.”