Supreme Court, 7-2, Padilla Not Retroactive: Chaidez v. U.S.

Majority (Kagan) - "In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea.  We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became  final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it.  We conclude that, under the prin­ciples set out in  Teague v.  Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect."

Dissent (JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE  GINSBURG joins) - "The Court holds today that  Padilla v.  Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010), announced a “new” rule within the mean­ing of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 301 (1989), and so does not apply to convictions that became final before its announcement.  That is wrong, because Padilla did noth­ing more than apply the existing rule of  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in a new setting, the same way the Court has done repeatedly in the past: by surveying the relevant professional norms and concluding that they unequivocally required attorneys to provide advice about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.  Because Padilla fell squarely within the metes and bounds established by Strickland, I respectfully dissent."

- Chaidez v. U.S., Feb. 20, 2013.