Yes. A lawyer has a duty to tell their client about the risk of deportation. Getting deported is a very serious penalty, like being banished from the country, and it's now a nearly automatic result for certain crimes. So, it's not just a side effect; it's a key part of the punishment. Because it's such a big deal, a competent lawyer must give their client a heads-up, especially when the law clearly states that the crime will lead to deportation.

Yes, but for a narrower reason. The lawyer gave Padilla flat-out wrong advice, which is always ineffective. However, criminal lawyers shouldn't be expected to be experts on immigration law, which is very complicated. The rule should be simpler: lawyers can't lie about it, and they should tell noncitizen clients, 'Hey, this conviction could have immigration consequences, so you should talk to an immigration expert.'

No. A lawyer's constitutional job is to defend a client against the criminal charges, not to give advice on other life problems that might result from a conviction. Deportation is a civil matter, not a criminal one. If we make lawyers responsible for this, what's next? Do they have to warn clients about losing their right to vote or their driver's license too? This is a problem for lawmakers to solve, not the courts.

Yes, the Constitution does require this. Being deported is a really big deal and is basically part of the punishment for the crime. So lawyers have to warn about it. If the law is clear that their client will be deported, like it was for Padilla, then the lawyer has to give the right advice. It's a really big deal to be deported and separated from your family, so the Constitution says lawyers have to warn about this.

Agrees with the overall decision, but says deportation law can be really confusing. So if the law isn't totally clear, lawyers just have to say there's a risk of deportation, but don't have to give specific advice. But if lawyers give wrong advice, that's still bad.

Disagrees. He says the Constitution only requires lawyers to help with the criminal case itself, not other consequences like deportation. He thinks the court is going too far and making the law too complicated for lawyers.

Yes, I agree with the overall decision that the Constitution requires lawyers to warn non-citizen clients if pleading guilty could lead to deportation. Deportation law can be really confusing. So if the law isn't totally clear, lawyers just have to say there's a risk of deportation, but don't have to give specific advice. But if lawyers give wrong advice, that's still bad.

No. The Constitution only requires lawyers to help with the criminal case itself, not other consequences like deportation. The Court is going too far and making the law too complicated for lawyers.

A] petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances

"When the law is not succinct and straightforward,... a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences"; however, "when the deportation consequence is truly clear... the duty to give correct advice is equally clear."

—the United States Supreme Court held that the failure of a defense attorney to inform an alien of the immigration consequences flowing from a guilty plea may rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court has held that failing to inform a criminal defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea falls below the standard of reasonableness required of an attorney under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In Padilla, the Supreme Court held "that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation."

"In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel's failure to advise a client that a consequence of his guilty plea likely would be deportation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel."

The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that " `[s] urmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task [,]'...[e] stablishing that a state court's application of Strickland was unreasonable under § 2254 (d) is all the more difficult. "

The certainty of deportation for certain offenses has dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen's criminal conviction and the importance of accurate legal advice regarding the immigration consequences of their criminal cases.

—the failure of defense counsel to advise a noncitizen defendant about the potential for deportation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, it clarified in Chaidez

The US Supreme Court has recognized that deportation as a consequence of a criminal conviction is "a particularly severe penalty

Yes. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires an attorney to inform a noncitizen client about the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. The court rejected the distinction between 'direct' and 'collateral' consequences in the context of deportation, reasoning that recent changes in immigration law have made deportation an almost automatic and integral part of the penalty for many criminal convictions. Given the severity of deportation, which is akin to 'banishment or exile,' prevailing professional norms require counsel to provide advice on this critical issue. The duty is clear when the immigration statute is 'succinct, clear, and explicit,' as it was in Padilla's case. Failure to provide correct advice in such circumstances, or to warn of potential consequences when the law is unclear, constitutes deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.

Yes, because counsel provided affirmative misadvice, which constitutes ineffective assistance. However, the Sixth Amendment should not be interpreted to require criminal defense attorneys to provide expert advice on complex immigration law. A more appropriate constitutional rule would require counsel to: 1) refrain from giving incorrect advice, and 2) advise a noncitizen client that a conviction may have adverse immigration consequences and that the client should consult an immigration specialist. The majority's test, which distinguishes between 'succinct and straightforward' laws and complex ones, is vague and will create confusion and unnecessary litigation for lower courts.

No. The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel 'for his defence' in a 'criminal prosecution,' which does not extend to advice about collateral civil consequences like deportation. The majority's holding has no logical stopping point and could be expanded to require advice on numerous other collateral consequences, such as loss of voting rights or professional licenses. This issue is better addressed through targeted legislation, such as statutes requiring judges to issue warnings about immigration consequences, rather than through a broad, 'legislatively irreparable' constitutional rule.

Yes. Counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation because deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on non-citizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. The failure to provide this advice falls below the standard of reasonableness and constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. When the law is clear, as it was in Padilla's case that his drug conviction would lead to deportation, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. The severity of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less under the Sixth Amendment.

Concurs in judgment, emphasizing that while the Sixth Amendment requires attorneys to inform clients about the risk of deportation, it is often difficult to predict the outcome of immigration proceedings. Therefore, when the law is not succinct and straightforward, attorneys need only advise that criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. Affirmative misadvice regarding deportation may constitute ineffective assistance, but the Sixth Amendment does not require attorneys to provide detailed advice on immigration consequences.

Dissents, arguing that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a lawyer for defense against a criminal prosecution, not for advice about a conviction's collateral consequences such as deportation. The Sixth Amendment does not require counsel to provide advice concerning the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Extending the holding to require advice about collateral consequences has no logical stopping point and usurps legislative authority.

Yes. We hold that counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation because deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on non-citizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. The failure to provide this advice falls below the standard of reasonableness and constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. When the law is clear, as it was in Padilla's case that his drug conviction would lead to deportation, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. The severity of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less under the Sixth Amendment.

Yes. I concur in the judgment. While the Sixth Amendment requires attorneys to inform clients about the risk of deportation, it is often difficult to predict the outcome of immigration proceedings. Therefore, when the law is not succinct and straightforward, attorneys need only advise that criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. Affirmative misadvice regarding deportation may constitute ineffective assistance, but the Sixth Amendment does not require attorneys to provide detailed advice on immigration consequences.

No. I dissent. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a lawyer for defense against a criminal prosecution, not for advice about a conviction's collateral consequences such as deportation. The Sixth Amendment does not require counsel to provide advice concerning the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Extending the holding to require advice about collateral consequences has no logical stopping point and usurps legislative authority.

Padilla v. Kentucky

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot