9th Circuit - Intergovernmental Immunity- Supremacy Clause - ICE - Contracts As the Immigration Wars between the federal government and state and local governments heat up anew, this case arose out of the previous battles when in 2019, the County Executive for King County Washington issued an Executive Order forbidding FBO's at the Boeing Field, a King County Airport, from servicing ICE planes. ICE used the facility for charter flights moving removable aliens to different locations. Boeing Field was transferred back to King County but with conditions that included the right of the United States to have non-exclusive use of the landing area without charge. Boeing Field had been acquired by the US in 1941 for use in World War II and was reconveyed to King County in 1948 under that and other conditions. The County met with various advocacy groups concerned about the transportation of the removable aliens and who feared that the actions administered by ICE at the Boeing Field amounted to human rights abuses. These meetings led the County Executive to issue an Executive Order designed in his words to protect against human trafficking and other human rights abuses. That order provided: Ensure that all future leases, operating permits and other authorizations for commercial activity at King County International Airport contain a prohibition against providing aeronautical or non[1]aeronautical services to enterprises engaged in the business of deporting immigration detainees (except for federal government aircraft), to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. It's authority challenged and its operations disrupted the United States sued to protect its interests, but only after attempting to find other nearby sites to continue its operations. It was unable to do so in the Seattle area and ultimately moved its operations to Yakima at additional costs to it. The lower court reviewed the claims and concluded that the United States had standing and that the Executive Order violated the terms of the transfer agreement and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The panel affirmed. It noted that the intergovernmental immunity doctrine flows from the Supremacy Clause and "In recognition of the federal government's independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from "interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government." Washington, 596 U.S. at 838. It does so by proscribing "state laws that either 'regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals' (e.g., contractors)." Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 435 (1990) (plurality op.))." Based on recent news reports, we can assume there will be more litigation to come over the question of the extent of federal authority vis a vis local interests in protecting their residents. USA V. KING COUNTY, 23-35362.pdf<https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/11/29/23-35362.pdf> I hope each of you had a wonderful Thanksgiving and can use the Cyber Monday discounts to join IMLA in programming in the coming year. www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>