The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is littered with special immigration doctrines that depart from mainstream constitutional norms. This Article reconciles these doctrines of “immigration exceptionalism” across constitutional dimensions. Historically, courts and commentators have considered whether immigration warrants exceptional treatment as pertains to rights, federalism, or separation of powers—as if developments in each doctrinal setting can be siloed. This Article rejects that approach, beginning with its underlying premise. Using contemporary examples, we demonstrate how the Court’s immigration doctrines dynamically interact with each other, and with politics, in ways that affect the whole system. This intervention provides a far more accurate rendering of how immigration exceptionalism translates into practice. By simultaneously accounting for rights, federalism, and separation of powers, our model captures a set of normative tradeoffs that context-specific appraisals have dangerously missed. For better and worse, the doctrines of immigration exceptionalism can operate very differently in combination than they do in isolation. Moreover, our expanded frame offers new insights on controversies arising at the intersection of constitutional dimensions, including the recent landmarks of United States v. Texas, Arizona v. United States, and President Trump’s executive orders issued in his first few weeks in office. Indeed, the transition between Presidents with drastically different views on immigration crystallizes the types of tradeoffs the Article highlights.
David S. Rubenstein and Pratheepan Gulasekaram,
Nw. U. L. Rev.