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.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700

3 comments (Add your own)

1. wrote:
I really like what you guys are usually up too. This type of clever work and exposure!
Keep up the good works guys I've incorporated you guys to my blogroll.

Fri, May 3, 2019 @ 9:43 PM

2. wrote:
of course like your web site however you have to test the spelling on quite a
few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems
and I in finding it very troublesome to tell the
reality then again I will surely come again again.

Mon, May 6, 2019 @ 2:06 PM

3. wrote:
Hey There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. That is a very neatly written article.

I'll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your useful info.
Thanks for the post. I'll certainly comeback.

Fri, May 17, 2019 @ 5:39 AM

Add a New Comment


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