Immigration and Citizenship

RELEASE: Statement of Elizabeth Wydra on the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra: “As Justice Stevens so eloquently explained in his majority opinion, it is the Court’s responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel.”

WASHINGTON, DC — In a resounding victory for the Constitution, the Supreme Court today reaffirmed that the guarantee of fundamental fairness in our Nation’s courts applies to non-citizens and citizens alike.  In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Court ruled that a lawyer has a constitutional obligation to tell an alien charged with a crime that a guilty plea could result in deportation.

CAC urged the result reached by the Court today.  In a text and history brief filed in Padilla, CAC demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers were concerned with securing robust due process protections for all persons in the United States, regardless of immigration status.  The petitioner here, Jose Padilla, had been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for almost 50 years, serving honorably in the military and building a life in this country.  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 completely wrong—in fact, Mr. Padilla faced automatic deportation as a result of his guilty plea.

The Supreme Court got it right today when it held that noncitizens who have been accused of crimes have a constitutional right to accurate legal advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.  In a dissent, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, claims that this ruling is contrary to the text and purpose of the Constitution.  They could not be more wrong.  As Justice Stevens so eloquently explained in his majority opinion, it is the Court’s responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel.

###

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. CAC filed a brief in Padilla in support of the petitioner, a copy of which may be found here.  

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
June 3, 2024

Improper DHS Appointment Voids Asylum Rule, Groups Argue

Law360
Law360 (June 3, 2024, 8:43 PM EDT) -- Two immigrant advocacy groups suing the federal...
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ali Sullivan
Immigration and Citizenship
June 23, 2023

RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Allows Administration to Prioritize Certain Noncitizens for Immigration Enforcement, as Presidential Administrations Have Done for Decades

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision this morning in United...
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
January 17, 2023

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers Access to Courts for Asylum-Seekers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Santos-Zacaria v....
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
November 29, 2022

RELEASE: Justices Acknowledge the Federal Government’s Authority over Immigration Enforcement When Confronted With State Opposition

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
September 19, 2022

RELEASE: Biden Administration Memo Setting Priorities for Immigration Enforcement Is Lawful, Group of Former DHS and INS Officials Tell Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a brief in the...
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Texas

In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Homeland Security guidance on immigration enforcement priorities is lawful.