Supreme Court Holds Padilla Not Retroactive

Supreme Court Holds Padilla Not Retroactive

Supreme Court Holds Padilla Not Retroactive
Today, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Padilla doctrine requiring Counsel to inform non-citizen clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation does not have retroactive effect. The opinion was delivered by Justice Elena Kagan.  Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the Court’s ruling, arguing that Padilla is not a new rule and should therefore be retroactively applied.
Background Information on Padilla
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Kentucky that the Sixth Amendment required criminal attorneys to advise immigrant clients of the risk of deportation prior to offering a guilty plea.  The concern that arose after this ruling was whether the Court’s ruling applied to cases prior to this ruling (i.e. retroactively) or whether the rule could only apply from then onwards.
Pre- Padilla Cases
In an earlier case, commonly referred to as “Teague”, it was held that a non-citizen who received a final conviction could not benefit from a “new rule” of criminal procedure.  However, many argued that Padilla was not a new rule, but an application of “Strickland’s” (which addresses the same legal issue) decision. Throughout the years, thousands of immigrants have filed cases arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, in the hope that their guilty pleas would be withdrawn, and thus prevent the deportation (removal) of their clients.  States have been split on this decision.  With today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, those with final order pre Padilla (2010) cannot successfully argue ineffective assistance of counsel under the Padilla doctrine.