Why the Rule-of-Law Dictates that the Exclusionary Rule Should Apply in Full Force in Immigration Proceedings

Abstract

This article discusses how and why the exclusionary rule should apply in the immigration context. The first part of the Article sets out the history of the exclusionary rule in immigration proceedings, starting prior to the Lopez-Mendoza decision, moving to the decision itself, and then discussing how the lower courts have interpreted it. Next, the article examines how the cost-benefit analysis that the Supreme Court used in Lopez-Mendoza to determine that the exclusionary rule need not apply in removal hearings would come out much differently if the Court weighed those same factors today. The article then considers how the increased involvement of state and local law enforcement in the enforcement of immigration law has brought about even more changes to the immigration law landscape. The article concludes with the argument that the cost-benefit analysis should be abandoned when trying to determine whether the exclusionary rule should apply in immigration proceedings, and instead, the exclusionary rule should apply in full force in immigration proceedings based on the application of the rule-of-law principles that the exclusionary rule was originally designed to protect.