A panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that the federal government retains the authority to deport foreign nationals residing illegally in the United States, even if local officials, including mayors and governors, oppose these actions. This ruling came in response to an executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine in 2019, which aimed to block U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using King County International Airport for deportation flights.

Federal Supremacy in Immigration Enforcement

The 29-page opinion, authored by Judge Daniel Bress, with Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton concurring, underscored the principle of federal supremacy in immigration enforcement. The court found that Constantine’s order, which prohibited the use of the county airfield for deportation activities, was in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause ensures that federal laws and regulations take precedence over state or local laws when they conflict.

Details of the Case

The dispute arose when Constantine's executive order sought to prevent ICE from utilizing the airfield for charter flights deporting individuals detained by immigration authorities. The Trump administration at the time argued that such local restrictions impeded federal operations, violating not only the Supremacy Clause but also a World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement that allowed federal use of the airport.

A lower district court had previously sided with the federal government, granting summary judgment against King County. The Ninth Circuit's decision to affirm this ruling reinforces that local jurisdictions cannot obstruct federal immigration law enforcement through local regulations or executive orders.

Impact on Sanctuary Policies

This ruling has potentially far-reaching implications for "sanctuary" jurisdictions across the country. By affirming the federal government's authority, the court has effectively limited the ability of local governments to create policies that shield undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement actions. This decision might encourage a more uniform approach to immigration enforcement across different states and counties, impacting how sanctuary policies are designed and enforced.

Reactions and Future Implications

The decision has sparked a range of reactions. Proponents of strict immigration enforcement have lauded the ruling as a reaffirmation of federal law and order. Conversely, critics argue that it undermines local communities' rights to set policies that reflect their values, particularly concerning human rights and family unity.

The Ninth Circuit, often perceived as one of the more liberal appellate courts, has previously made decisions that underscore the balance between federal authority and local governance in immigration matters. This ruling might not be the final chapter, as it could lead to further legal challenges or legislative efforts to clarify the boundaries between federal and local powers in immigration enforcement.

As Donald Trump prepares to assume office again in January 2025, this ruling could play a significant role in shaping his administration's approach to immigration, potentially emboldening efforts to enforce immigration laws more aggressively across the nation.