Criminal Law

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky raised the question of whether the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel includes advice regarding likely deportation as a result of a criminal conviction.

Case Summary

On June 2, 2009, CAC filed a brief in the Supreme Court case of Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky in support of robust due process protections for immigrant criminal defendants.

Padilla raised the question of whether the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel includes advice regarding likely deportation as a result of a criminal conviction. The petitioner, Jose Padilla, had been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for almost 50 years. He served in the armed forces in the Vietnam War and built a life in the United States. Accordingly, when he ran into trouble with the law and was considering pleading guilty to a five-year jail term for a non-violent drug offense, he was particularly concerned with his immigration status. His lawyer told him that he did not need to worry about being deported because he had been in the country for so long. This advice was flat wrong—in fact, Mr. Padilla faced automatic deportation as a result of his guilty plea. Mr. Padilla has argued to the Supreme Court that he would never have pleaded guilty had he known the true immigration consequences of his plea—opting instead to take his chances at trial or attempt to negotiate a better plea bargain—and that his lawyer’s blatantly incorrect advice falls below the constitutional minimum required for effective assistance of counsel.

CAC’s brief supports Mr. Padilla by laying out the text and detailed history of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which applied the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of assistance of counsel to the States. Our brief shows that the framers of the Due Process Clause were particularly concerned that non-citizens get a fair shake in state criminal courts and argues that what happened to Mr. Padilla cannot possibly fit within this constitutional vision.

On March 31, 2010, in a resounding victory for the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled as CAC had urged, and held that the lawyer for an alien charged with a crime has a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk that he will be deported.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Law

Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Kian v. State of Florida

In Kian v. State of Florida, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to have at least twelve members.
Criminal Law
June 29, 2026

CAC Release: In Important Victory for Digital Privacy, Supreme Court Holds that Even Short-Term Police Monitoring of Cell-Phone Location Information Is Regulated by the Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chatrie v. United States,...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes Clear Pathway to Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Pitchford v. Cain, a...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Majority Rules that Judges Cannot Consider Changing Views of Crime when Reducing Sentences

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Rutherford v. United States...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Court’s Commitment to Text and History Falters in Compassionate Release Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v. United States, a case...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle