| Chaidez v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 1, 2012 Decided February 20, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner v. United States. |
| Docket no. | 11–820 |
| Citations | 568 U.S. 342 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1103; 185 L. Ed. 2d 149; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1613; 81 U.S.L.W. 4112 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Federal Court determined that Padilla v. Kentucky could be held retroactively |
| Holding | |
| Padilla v. Kentucky cannot be used retroactively. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg |
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1] Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea.[2] While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied.[3] Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.[3]
Chaidez v. United States placed a limitation on the ruling in Padilla holding that it does not apply to any case before March 31, 2010, when the Padilla decision was issued. Some legal scholars speculate that this decision was made in part to prevent a "flood" of new cases from any time in the past.[4] Non-citizens challenging a deportation case who do not have protection under Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky are still able to appeal a trial if they have been otherwise misadvised regarding the actual trial. Chaidez v. United States did not clarify whether or not individuals who filed a claim before March 31, 2010, but whose final conviction took place after March 31, 2010, were able to receive protection from Padilla v. Kentucky.[5]
- ^ Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013).
- ^ Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1478 (2010).
- ^ a b Padilla, 130 S. Ct. at 1496.
- ^ "The Supreme Court Ruling in Chaidez v. United States: Averting a Flood of Padilla Litigation by Former Prisoners"Criminal Law Reporter. May 31, 2010
- ^ "Seeking Post-Conviction Under Padilla v. Kentucky after Chaidez v. United States Archived 2013-04-22 at the Wayback Machine" National Immigration Project. February 28, 2013