A federal appeals court strikes down Seattle’s sanctuary policy, reaffirming federal supremacy in immigration enforcement.
At a Glance
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against King County’s ban on ICE deportation flights
- Policy violates federal contract and Constitution’s supremacy clause
- Decision marks significant setback for sanctuary jurisdictions
- Ruling upholds federal authority in immigration enforcement
Court Overturns Seattle’s Sanctuary Policy
In a decisive blow to sanctuary policies nationwide, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a Seattle-area order that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using King County International Airport for deportation flights. The court deemed the 2019 executive order, signed by King County Executive Dow Constantine, unlawful on multiple grounds.
“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,” stated Judge Daniel A. Bress in the court’s opinion.
This 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. The decision marks a significant legal victory for federal immigration enforcement and a setback for local governments attempting to obstruct federal operations.
The administration has won a significant legal victory over a sanctuary jurisdiction after a federal appeals court ruled against a Seattle-area policy that barred Homeland Security from using local airports to detain and deport illegal immigrants. https://t.co/xsHY0jjXHJ
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 2, 2024
Implications for Sanctuary Jurisdictions
The court’s ruling carries far-reaching implications for sanctuary jurisdictions across the nation. By striking down King County’s policy, the Ninth Circuit has set a precedent that could impact similar local policies aimed at resisting federal immigration enforcement.
This decision is part of a broader trend of courts rejecting state-led efforts to block ICE from using local facilities. It underscores the legal boundaries between federal immigration enforcement and state or local resistance, potentially affecting other jurisdictions attempting to impede federal immigration efforts.
Impact on ICE Operations
The sanctuary policy had forced ICE to relocate its operations from Boeing Field to Yakima Air Terminal, increasing costs and reducing enforcement efficiency. The policy prevented the airport from leasing to companies doing business with ICE, effectively obstructing federal immigration operations.
This statement from Matthew O’Brien highlights the delicate balance between federal and local authority in immigration matters. While states cannot be compelled to actively assist in federal immigration enforcement, they are also prohibited from deliberately obstructing such efforts.
Local Response and Future Implications
King County officials have expressed disappointment with the ruling. Amy Enbysk, a spokesperson for the county, argued that the decision undermines local values without demonstrating any actual impact. However, the court found the county’s concerns about potential protests and human rights issues to be speculative and without basis.
The case, which has been in federal courts for nearly five years, could still be appealed further. However, this ruling serves as a clear message to sanctuary jurisdictions that policies directly obstructing federal immigration enforcement are likely to face legal challenges and potential overturning.
As the debate around sanctuary policies continues, this court decision not only impacts federal operations but also prompts a reevaluation of similar local policies nationwide. It deepens the discourse around the legalities and ethics of immigration measures, reaffirming the supremacy of federal immigration laws in the face of local resistance.
