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.’