Law Commons^™

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court held that defense attorneys have a Sixth Amendment duty to advise noncitizens client of the “clear” immigration consequences of a proposed plea agreement. This Article argues that the Court’s reference to clarity denotes predictability, not simplicity, and that defense attorneys must advise their clients of predictable immigration consequences, even if they are difficult to ascertain. The scope of this duty has broadened as the U.S. Supreme Court has made the crime-related deportation rules more determinate, although many rules remain complex. A legislative move to a regime of simple deportation rules would greatly …

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to counsel their noncitizen clients about the immigration consequences of a plea. Padilla left undecided the critical question of whether its holding applies to other noncitizen defendants whose pleas were final before March 31, 2010, when the Court issued its opinion. The Court took up this question in Chaidez v. United States, a case raising this issue in the context of a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) involving a federal conviction. Assuming, but not deciding, that the retroactivity framework set …