Chaidez v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 1, 2012
|Feb 20, 2013||7-2||Kagan||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on February 20, 2013. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
- Opinion recap: Court refuses to apply Padilla v. Kentucky retroactively (Kevin Johnson)
- Argument recap: A lawyer’s puzzle -- The retroactive impact of Padilla v. Kentucky (Kevin Johnson)
- Academic highlight: Looking at Padilla and its impact (Amanda Frost)
- Court cancels Tuesday sitting (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument preview: The retroactive application of Padilla v. Kentucky (Kevin Johnson)
- New look at lawyers' advice (Lyle Denniston)
- Petition of the day (Kali Borkoski)