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
March 24, 2025

RELEASE: Immigration Provision at Heart of Today’s Oral Argument Should Not Be a Jurisdictional Trap for Unwary Immigrants

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court today in Riley v. Bondi,...
Immigration and Citizenship
February 1, 2025

News13 fact check: Graham, Mace make bold political statements days apart

WBTW News13
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (WBTW) — Two high-profile members of South Carolina’s Congressional delegation made news...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 28, 2025

Donald Trump’s Attempts to Bring Back Dred Scott Decision Will Fail | Opinion

Newsweek
In the first—but surely not the last—court order temporarily blocking President Donald Trump's executive order...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Nina Henry
Immigration and Citizenship
January 21, 2025

Oregon joins growing list of states challenging Trump administration over birthright citizenship

The Oregonian
Oregon on Tuesday joined a growing list of Democratic-led states suing the Trump administration over...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 21, 2025

Trump Tried To Rewrite Part Of The Constitution On Day 1. Here’s What You Need To Know.

HuffPost
Can Trump actually end birthright citizenship? Here’s what the laws say.
Immigration and Citizenship
January 21, 2025

States, civil rights groups sue to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order

Washington Post
Constitutional scholars said the president’s executive order would upend precedent and is unlikely to pass...