In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defense lawyers must warn their clients if deportation could be a collateral consequence of a guilty plea. This February, the court limited the reach of that ruling, saying it did not apply retroactively to people whose convictions had become final by the time the justices announced their 2010 decision, Padilla v. Kentucky. Based on the Padilla decision, a federal judge in Illinois set aside Roselva Chaidez’s conviction.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for herself and six other justices, heard the case of Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820 and said the federal judge’s ruling was at odds with the Supreme Court’s central precedent concerning retroactivity, its 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane. The Teague decision said that a ruling is retroactive if it applies existing precedent, but not if it announces a new legal principle. New rules count only from when they are announced.
via Adam Liptak of The New York Times
A version of this article appeared in print on Thursday, February 21, 2013, on page A14 of The New York Times with the headline: Supreme Court Limits Reach of 2010 Ruling on Deportation Warning
Comments are closed.