>>147900cont...
In short, King County got laughed out of court by a three-judge panel, whose scalding decision was written by Daniel A. Bress, named to the bench in 2019 by one Donald Trump.
The decision had no particular poetry, unlike Supreme Court Justices Scalia's or Alito's opinions. In fact, it read more closely like a Thomas opinion, in which he lays out the facts, and then BOOM, lays down the law, which, in fact, is, was, and never will be in King County's favor, at least according to this howler.
The decision was punctuated with these phrases one seldom reads with such frequency in an opinion. "King County is incorrect, and "its reliance on the Supreme Court’s Trump decision is misplaced." "The County is mistaken," it read. "King County’s contrary arguments fail," Bress wrote.
And on and on it went. BAM! POW!
We reject the County’s assertion...
There is no basis...
The Executive Order violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine ...
The Executive Order violates this precept.
This discrimination, plain on the face of the Order, contravenes the intergovernmental immunity doctrine...
The County’s attempt to evade the intergovernmental immunity doctrine through a market-participant defense likewise fails.
To begin with, there is a lack of evidence of such disruptions...
The anti-commandeering doctrine provides no defense to the Executive Order invalidating the Order does not lead to a violation of the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
Instead, the United States is asking King County, in its capacity as the owner of a public airport facility, to lift a discriminatory prohibition on private parties’ ability to engage in business with the federal government that supports federal immigration efforts. King County’s Executive Order also fails under the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine. This doctrine is an outgrowth of the
Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. King County’s Executive Order on its face discriminates against the United States “by singling out” the federal government and its contractors “for unfavorable treatment” or “regulat[ing] them unfavorably on some basis related to their governmental ‘status.’ Reading between the lines, the 9th Circuit, in so many words, said: Are you people high? Where did you go to law school?
Then the court ruled against King County because when Boeing Field was turned over to the county after World War II, they agreed to let the federal government use it forever without charge. The county claimed that the District Court was unable to consider the case and that it should have been sent to the Department of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration.
Does the decision have legs? Yes. Under the Supremacy Clause, there's room to go after 9th District jurisdictions that believe they can stop illegal aliens from being deported.
Finally, if the federal government can fly them in with impunity, why can't the federal government fly them out?
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/12/03/court-ruling-sorry-commies-you-cant-stop-ice-from-deporting-illegal-aliens-n4934794