Case Blog: Chaidez v. United States

Case Blog: Chaidez v. United States

Not a big surprise on this one.  I think it was fairly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court was going to hold that Padilla (the case holding that defense attorneys must inform their clients of possible deportation) would be retroactive.  There are too many cases and situations in the past to make this a feasible solution.

Chaidez v. United States, (7-2, Opinion by Justice Kagan on February 20, 2013.  Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting.) Summary: The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In a decision, written by Justice Kagan, the Court held that their holding in Padilla v. Kentucky,that defense attorneys are required to inform their clients of potential deportation risks associated with guilty pleas,does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.

By: ​Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700


No comments (Add your own)

Add a New Comment


code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.