Denver’s City Council voted to deny a lease at the airport to a carrier based on their politics, in clear violation of federal law on Monday.
The council voted down a proposed agreement with Key Lime Air 11-1 for 1,200 square feet of space near the south cargo area to store equipment for snow removal and an office trailer. The overwhelming rejection was done because Key Lime has operated ICE deportation flights.
Two Key Lime aircraft have been used in ICE operations, including flights moving shackled detainees between ICE hubs like El Paso, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana. Key Lime, which is based in Colorado, has not carried out ICE flights from the state.
During the hearing, several councilmembers condemned the administration’s immigration policies, saying they wouldn’t support providing city support and logistics to a company tied to those flights.
- This doesn’t remove Key Lime Air from the airport. They are already there.
- It just denies them this new dedicated leased space. And they can still use common-use cargo apron space. They operate at lower cost, albeit less convenience.
BOOM ✈️
“When we’re talking about the values of our city, and we stand up here and we say time after time that we support our immigrant community and that we are a welcoming city — I cannot support a corporation that does not prescribe to that,” Council member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez said.
— JJ in DC (@jjindc.bsky.social) December 15, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Enilria says “the FAA has to take action here because it’s a very slippery slope if airports are allowed to block airlines from leasing space at an airport. What if Delta lobbies board members to deny a lease to a competitor to keep them out?” and concludes, “The Airline Deregulation Act specifically prohibits this for a reason.”
Actually, airports frustrate new service all the time, and in the Delta example that pretty much describes the history of the Atlanta airport making things difficult for new competitors. Just ask JetBlue about its experience as it began service there.
Airline Deregulation Act preemption blocks state and local “laws, regulations, or other provisions having the force and effect of law” that relate to an air carrier’s price, route, or service. Here’s a decision motivated by Key Lime service, but that won’t block such service. And the airport will argue that they retain proprietary powers over the facility. The outcome on this doesn’t seem entirely clear to me, though I’m interested to hear from subject matter experts.
However this seems like a clear violation of Airport Improvement Program grant assurances. Denver airport accepts FAA funding, and agrees that it will make its facilities available “on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.”
The question is whether the airport is imposing unequal conditions or effectively denying needed access and facilities.
The council has clearly stated the reason for the lease denial is ‘we don’t like the flights you are running for ICE.’ Airports can make these decisions for safety, capacity, environmental, and operational efficiency – they can’t favor or disfavor an air carrier because of its customers. Key Lime is explicitly singled out by the city council.
The city’s only real defense here is that their move is purely symbolic, doesn’t deny access, and doesn’t actually impair Key Lime’s ability to conduct is activity at the airport.
However it’s going to be difficult for the aiprot to point to any neutral land use or operational reason that treats Key Lime consistent with how other airport tenants are treated. And the fact that it’s the administration’s immigration policies being attacked almost forces the administration to respond.
Key Lime can pursue the FAA’s airport compliance process, seeking a finding that the airport violated grant assurances and seeking corrective action. If the airport doesn’t take corrective action, it jeopardizes its federal funding. And regardless of how any lawsuit would ultimately adjudicate the airport’s (and city council’s) rights, there is certainly enough of a hook for the Trump administration to respond.
If the city council had just voted down the lease as though they prefer expanding into the cargo area through common use rather than exclusive leases at this time, and not commented on ICE deportation flights, they’d have been fine. But by making this about the airline’s politics and choice of customers, they’ve put their presumptively illegal motivations on the record.
lefties are a fifth column and world be treated as such.
Ice is doing good work, any rational person supports them.
@Walter Barry — How’s the winter in Moscow so far?
Too bad all ice flights cannot be shot down
As to the substance of the article, yeah, Gary, you present a clever, conservative-leaning, faux-intellectual justification, like a few of your regulars on here often promote, but, sometimes standing up for what you believe in, including for the truth and for decency, often will cost you; yet, it may still be the right thing to do in the long term. Separately, I’d analogize that these days, some businesses, like Costco (upholding their DEI policies), are doing this right; others, like Target (and United) are not (Casablanca-style ‘swaying with the wind,’ appeasing the tyrant, etc.) So, maybe the City Council would rather jeopardize federal funding rather than supporting or enabling odious, inhumane policies. And, if so, I applaud them for standing up for their strongly-held beliefs. And, if they reach those conclusions in a fair, democratic process, like a literal 11-1 vote, under their jurisdiction, then that seems more true-American than anything.
@Trk1 — No. Please stop. That is not the way. At all.
@Trk1
Too bad we can’t start deporting seditious us “citizens” like yourself.
@1990
Woke is dead and not coming back. A few traitorous holdouts isn’t going to rekindle it
A perfect opportunity to build an entirely new airport in Castle Rock or north Colorado Springs.
@1990 – In just a few sentences you are saying that illegal invaders should be welcome in America and you don’t respect the rule of law. What other American laws do you violate?
@Walter Barry – I agree with most everything you say and I am a proud US citizen that despises people that encourage illegal behavior.
@Denver Refugee — I was looking forward to your comment. What a surprise that’d be for Peña Blvd to go the way of Stapleton. Doubtful, but fun to contemplate.
@Walter Barry — You said before that you live in a ‘red state’… did you mean ‘federation’?
@Michael Mainello — Do you even read my comments? I said nothing of that sort. I literally support the rule of law, which is that the City Council can vote to deny this and lose out on federal funds, if that is their preference. As far as violations of law, are you pulling a Beria, “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime,” because, if so, I’m not sure that’s the man you want to emulate.
Airports that accept federal assistance sign up for a nondiscrimination regime that is deliberately broader than normal local politics, because the national air transportation system only works if access to aeronautical facilities cannot be toggled on and off based on who an operator’s customers are.
It also sets a precedent that should worry everyone who cares about competition: once “disfavored customer” becomes a valid reason to deny ordinary airport rights and privileges, the same template can be reused for labor disputes, firearms-related shipping, climate politics, reproductive-health travel, you name it, and the result is a patchwork of de facto route and service constraints imposed by local bodies, exactly what federal preemption is meant to prevent.
If the local officials want to oppose a federal policy, there are durable ways to do it that do not contaminate airport administration with content-based tests. But when a city uses an airport’s leasing and permitting power as a moral sanction against an otherwise lawful aeronautical operator, it is not just “symbolic,” it is the kind of on-the-record viewpoint discrimination that creates a clean, administrable enforcement hook for federal regulators and courts.