Chaidez v. United States

Background

Chaidez is a lawful permanent resident from Mexico who pleaded guilty in federal court to two counts of mail fraud for a scheme that took about $26,000. She was sentenced to probation and restitution, and her conviction became final in 2004. Because the offenses counted as aggravated felonies under federal immigration law, immigration officials later sought to remove her. After Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held that defense lawyers must advise noncitizen clients about deportation risk, Chaidez asked a federal court to undo her conviction through a coram nobis petition—a way to collaterally attack an old conviction—and argued her lawyer had failed to give such advice.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether Padilla applies retroactively under Teague v. Lane. Teague bars new constitutional rules from collateral review for convictions already final. The Court concluded that Padilla announced a new rule because it did more than apply the Strickland standard; it first resolved whether advice about deportation was categorically outside the Sixth Amendment by rejecting the longstanding direct-versus-collateral distinction adopted by most lower courts. Because that threshold holding was not dictated by prior precedent, Padilla was new and therefore not retroactive. The Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s judgment that Chaidez could not benefit from Padilla.

Real world impact

As a result, people whose convictions became final before Padilla cannot obtain relief based on Padilla’s rule. That leaves many earlier convictions insulated from ineffective-assistance claims about failure to warn noncitizen defendants about deportation risk. The decision resolves a split among federal and state courts in favor of non-retroactivity. The ruling does not decide whether Padilla is correct for future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but said Padilla was wrong and Teague analysis unnecessary. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented, arguing Padilla merely applied the existing Strickland test and therefore should apply retroactively.