Criminal Procedure — immigration consequences — retroactivity

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — immigration consequences — retroactivity

Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.

Chaidez argues that Padilla did no more than apply Strickland to a new set of facts. But she ignores that Padilla had to develop new law to determine that Strickland applied at all. The few lower court decisions she cites held only that a lawyer may not affirmatively misrepresent his expertise or otherwise actively mislead his client as to any important matter. Those rulings do not apply to her case, and they do not show that all reasonable judges thought that lawyers had to advise their clients about deportation risks. Neither does INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, have any relevance here. In saying that a reasonably competent lawyer would tell a non-citizen client about a guilty plea’s deportation consequences, St. Cyr did not determine that the Sixth Amendment requires a lawyer to provide such information. It took Padilla to decide that question.

655 F. 3d 684, affirmed.

11-820 Chaidez v. U.S.

Kagan, J.; Thomas, J., concurring; Sotomayor, J., dissenting.