Today’s opinion in U.S. v. King County, authored by Judge Daniel Bress and joined by Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clifton, addresses the actions taken by King County that were deemed to be in violation of the “intergovernmental immunity doctrine”:
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had been using Boeing Field in Washington for charter flights to transport removable aliens. However, in 2019, King County issued Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, directing that future leases at Boeing Field prohibit Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) from servicing ICE charter flights due to disagreements with federal immigration policies. As a result, all FBOs at Boeing Field announced they would no longer service ICE.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that King County’s actions violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine:
The Executive Order interfered with federal operations and discriminated against the federal government, thus breaching the Supremacy Clause. It regulated the way in which ICE transports noncitizen detainees and effectively granted King County control over ICE’s transportation and deportation operations. This violated the core promise of the Supremacy Clause and discriminated against the federal government and its contractors based on their governmental status.
Despite arguments from King County about justifying the treatment of ICE charter flights due to unique risks, the Executive Order specifically targeted federal immigration operations, not disruption levels. It discriminated against the United States based on federal policy disagreements, making it unconstitutional under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.
The discriminatory nature of the Order, as evident on its face, goes against the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. The panel determined that King County cannot justify its actions based on the anti-commandeering doctrine, especially since the United States is not requesting the county to enforce federal immigration laws but simply asking for the removal of a discriminatory prohibition on private business dealings that support federal immigration efforts. This does not amount to unconstitutional commandeering. The panel also dismissed the County’s “marketplace participant” defense, stating that King County’s objections to federal immigration policy do not align with the actions of a market participant. Additionally, the panel found that King County’s actions violated a World War II-era contract that allowed the United States to use Boeing Field. The Executive Order prohibiting FBO services to ICE charter flights contradicts this agreement. McKaye L. Neumeister represented the government in this case. Can you please rewrite this sentence?
Source link
