Padilla v. Kentucky

Background

Jose Padilla is a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty in Kentucky to drug distribution. His criminal lawyer told him not to worry about deportation because he had lived in the United States a long time. Padilla later said he would have gone to trial if he had known the plea made deportation likely. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied relief, treating deportation as a collateral consequence outside the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court took the case to decide whether counsel must tell noncitizen clients about removal risks.

Reasoning

The Justices held that the right to effective counsel applies when deportation consequences are clear. The Court applied the Strickland test for lawyer performance and looked to professional norms and the immigration statute. When the law plainly and explicitly makes a conviction removable, a lawyer must advise her noncitizen client. When immigration consequences are unclear, a lawyer need only warn that criminal charges may carry immigration risks and suggest consulting an immigration specialist. The Court found Padilla alleged deficient advice because the drug statute plainly triggered removal, but it left the question of actual prejudice - whether Padilla lost a trial chance - to the Kentucky courts.

Real world impact

This decision affects noncitizen defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and prosecutors handling plea bargains. Lawyers must warn clients or explain the limits of their immigration expertise, and plea negotiations may change to avoid mandatory removal. The ruling is not a final ruling on Padilla's relief; lower courts still must decide whether he was actually harmed.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito agreed with the judgment but urged a narrower rule: avoid incorrect advice and tell clients to consult an immigration attorney. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the Sixth Amendment does not cover collateral immigration consequences and preferring legislative solutions.