Court Decision Challenges Seattle’s Sanctuary Policies: What’s Next for Immigration?

Building with columns under a cloudy sky.

A federal appeals court has struck down a Seattle-area sanctuary policy, dealing a blow to local efforts to resist federal immigration enforcement.

At a Glance

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled King County’s order blocking ICE deportation flights unlawful
Decision reinforces federal authority over local jurisdictions in immigration matters
Ruling could impact similar sanctuary policies nationwide
Case highlights ongoing tension between federal and local approaches to immigration enforcement

Court Overturns King County’s Sanctuary Policy

In a significant legal development, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a King County, Washington order preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using a Seattle-area airport for deportation flights is unlawful. This decision marks a crucial victory for federal immigration enforcement and sets a precedent that could affect similar sanctuary policies across the nation.

The 2019 order, signed by King County Executive Dow Constantine, was an attempt to resist federal immigration operations at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. However, the federal appeals court found that this policy violated both a contract between King County and the federal government and the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Appeals court blasts sanctuary policy that blocked ICE from using King County International Airport https://t.co/AaOYHkxhkL pic.twitter.com/pDxekZetsq

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 3, 2024

Legal Implications and Federal Supremacy

The court’s decision affirms a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States, which had been previously ruled by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in 2023. This ruling emphasizes the legal boundaries between federal immigration enforcement and state or local resistance.

“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,” said Judge Daniel A. Bress.

The court found that the county’s policy discriminated against federal immigration operations, violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for other jurisdictions attempting to block federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Impact on ICE Operations and Local Response

As a result of King County’s policy, ICE had 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 forcing contractors to refuse ICE business.

“The Executive Order therefore discriminatorily burdens the United States specifically because of federal immigration operations, based on the County’s disagreement with federal policy. This discrimination, plain on the face of the Order, contravenes the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” wrote Judge Daniel A. Bress.

King County officials have expressed disagreement with the ruling. Amy Enbysk, a spokesperson for the county, stated, “The Ninth Circuit’s decision allows a raw assertion of federal power to overcome an expression of local values even absent any actual impact.” This sentiment reflects the ongoing tension between local jurisdictions seeking to protect undocumented residents and federal authorities enforcing immigration laws.

Broader Implications for Sanctuary Policies

This case is part of a broader trend of courts rejecting state-led efforts to block ICE from using local facilities. It represents a significant setback for sanctuary jurisdictions opposing federal immigration enforcement and could influence similar policies across the country.

“The government doesn’t have any right to command the states or local jurisdictions to undertake federal responsibilities, but by the same token. The states can’t set up any type of scheme that’s deliberately calculated to frustrate federal enforcement,” said Matthew O’Brien, emphasizing the delicate balance between state and federal authority in immigration matters.

As this case has been in the federal courts for nearly five years, it could potentially be appealed further. However, for now, the ruling stands as a clear affirmation of federal supremacy in immigration enforcement, potentially reshaping the landscape of local sanctuary policies nationwide.