PHILADELPHIA -- University of Pennsylvania Law School students‚Äô work on the Supreme Court case, Padilla v. Kentucky has resulted in the Court ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court decision means that lawyers must tell non-citizen criminal defendants whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.
Stephanos Bibas and students in his Supreme Court Clinic helped shape the arguments for the case, which tests the limits of the Sixth Amendment‚Äôs guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for non-citizen criminal defendants. Jose Padilla, a legal permanent resident who lived in the United States for 40 years, had been wrongly told by his attorney that, although he wasn‚Äôt a citizen, he would not be deported if he pleaded guilty to a drug charge.
"This is a historic decision," said Stephen Kinnaird, Penn Law lecturer and partner of the Washington, DC law firm, Paul Hastings, who argued the case on behalf of Padilla. " The Court has now recognized that the lawyer's duties have evolved with the increased intertwining of criminal and immigration law.‚ÄĚ
The ruling will have a tremendous impact on criminal cases against non-citizens.
‚ÄúThe defense lawyer has to be effective in warning you about this major thing that‚Äôs looming and on the horizon,‚ÄĚ Bibas said. ‚ÄúThe defense lawyer has to tell the client, ‚ÄėThis crime carries automatic deportation‚Äô and maybe where it‚Äôs not so automatic, warn him, ‚ÄėThere‚Äôs a possibility of deportation here, and you need to talk with someone about it for more details.‚Äô‚ÄĚ
The students researched state laws to see whether there are differences concerning the ethical obligations attorneys have when advising clients on the consequences that a guilty plea might have on immigration status.
In October, students were at the Supreme Court hear oral arguments in the case.