In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s authority to deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally. The decision came after objections from local jurisdictions, and therefore reaffirms federal immigration enforcement capabilities, and deals a blow to sanctuary policies aimed at obstructing deportations.

The case centered on a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine, which barred the use of King County International Airport, near Seattle, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation charter flights. The airport is adjacent to a major ICE operational base in Seattle, writes The Center Square.

Constantine’s order sought to prevent airport services from supporting ICE deportation flights, citing concerns about family separations, racial disparities in enforcement, and other human rights issues. The federal government, under the Trump administration, sued, arguing that the order violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, and a WWII-era Instrument of Transfer agreement allowing federal use of the airport.

A district court ruled in favor of the federal government, and King County appealed. Writing for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Daniel Bress, joined by Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton, affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The panel ruled that Constantine’s order improperly targeted the federal government and its contractors, violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by “singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.” The court further found that the order increased ICE’s operational costs and created imminent risks of further injury, thereby giving the federal government standing to sue.

Additionally, the judges upheld the claim that the order violated the Instrument of Transfer under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which explicitly allows federal use of the airport.

Constantine defended the order as consistent with King County’s commitment to inclusivity and human rights. He argued that deportations conflict with the region’s values, including protecting families and promoting equity. However, the Ninth Circuit held that such ideological arguments could not override federal law and constitutional principles.