Padilla v. Kentucky

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY

No. 08–651. Argued October 13, 2009—Decided March 31, 2010

Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for

over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drug

distribution charges in Kentucky. In postconviction proceedings, he

claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this conse

quence before he entered the plea, but also told him not to worry

about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. He al

leges that he would have gone to trial had he not received this incor

rect advice. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Padilla postconvic

tion relief on the ground that the Sixth Amendment’s effective

assistance-of-counsel guarantee does not protect defendants from er

roneous deportation advice because deportation is merely a “collat

eral” consequence of a conviction.

Held: Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a

risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel

was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief de

pends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed

here. Pp. 2–18.

(a) Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the

stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. While once there was

only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad

discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms

have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’

authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the

drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable

for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance

of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never

been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is

an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen de

fendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. Pp. 2–6.

2 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Syllabus

(b) Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, applies to Padilla’s

claim. Before deciding whether to plead guilty, a defendant is enti

tled to “the effective assistance of competent counsel.” McMann v.

Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 771. The Supreme Court of Kentucky re

jected Padilla’s ineffectiveness claim on the ground that the advice he

sought about deportation concerned only collateral matters. How

ever, this Court has never distinguished between direct and collat

eral consequences in defining the scope of constitutionally “reason

able professional assistance” required under Strickland, 466 U. S., at

689. The question whether that distinction is appropriate need not

be considered in this case because of the unique nature of deporta

tion. Although removal proceedings are civil, deportation is inti

mately related to the criminal process, which makes it uniquely diffi

cult to classify as either a direct or a collateral consequence. Because

that distinction is thus ill-suited to evaluating a Strickland claim

concerning the specific risk of deportation, advice regarding deporta

tion is not categorically removed from the ambit of the Sixth Amend

ment right to counsel. Pp. 7–9.

(c) To satisfy Strickland’s two-prong inquiry, counsel’s representa

tion must fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 466

U. S., at 688, and there must be “a reasonable probability that, but

for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would

have been different,” id., at 694. The first, constitutional deficiency,

is necessarily linked to the legal community’s practice and expecta

tions. Id., at 688. The weight of prevailing professional norms sup

ports the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the de

portation risk. And this Court has recognized the importance to the

client of “ ‘[p]reserving the . . . right to remain in the United States’ ”

and “preserving the possibility of” discretionary relief from deporta

tion. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 323. Thus, this is not a hard case

in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla’s plea could

easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deporta

tion was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel’s advice was in

correct. There will, however, undoubtedly be numerous situations in

which the deportation consequences of a plea are unclear. In those

cases, a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a

noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry adverse

immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is

truly clear, as it was here, the duty to give correct advice is equally

clear. Accepting Padilla’s allegations as true, he has sufficiently al

leged constitutional deficiency to satisfy Strickland’s first prong.

Whether he can satisfy the second prong, prejudice, is left for the

Kentucky courts to consider in the first instance. Pp. 9–12.

(d) The Solicitor General’s proposed rule—that Strickland should

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Syllabus

be applied to Padilla’s claim only to the extent that he has alleged af

firmative misadvice—is unpersuasive. And though this Court must

be careful about recognizing new grounds for attacking the validity of

guilty pleas, the 25 years since Strickland was first applied to inef

fective-assistance claims at the plea stage have shown that pleas are

less frequently the subject of collateral challenges than convictions

after a trial. Also, informed consideration of possible deportation can

benefit both the State and noncitizen defendants, who may be able to

reach agreements that better satisfy the interests of both parties.

This decision will not open the floodgates to challenges of convictions

obtained through plea bargains. Cf. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52,

58. Pp. 12–16.

253 S. W. 3d 482, reversed and remanded.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY,

GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opin

ion concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.

SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–651

_________________

JOSE PADILLA, PETITIONER v. KENTUCKY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

KENTUCKY

[March 31, 2010]

JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, has been

a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more

than 40 years. Padilla served this Nation with honor as a

member of the U. S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam

War. He now faces deportation after pleading guilty to the

transportation of a large amount of marijuana in his

tractor-trailer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.1

In this postconviction proceeding, Padilla claims that his

counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence

prior to his entering the plea, but also told him that he

“ ‘did not have to worry about immigration status since he

had been in the country so long.’ ” 253 S. W. 3d 482, 483

(Ky. 2008). Padilla relied on his counsel’s erroneous ad

vice when he pleaded guilty to the drug charges that made

his deportation virtually mandatory. He alleges that he

would have insisted on going to trial if he had not received

incorrect advice from his attorney.

Assuming the truth of his allegations, the Supreme

——————

1 Padilla’s crime, like virtually every drug offense except for only the

most insignificant marijuana offenses, is a deportable offense under 8

U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

2 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

Court of Kentucky denied Padilla postconviction relief

without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. The court

held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective

assistance of counsel does not protect a criminal defendant

from erroneous advice about deportation because it is

merely a “collateral” consequence of his conviction. Id., at

485. In its view, neither counsel’s failure to advise peti

tioner about the possibility of removal, nor counsel’s incor

rect advice, could provide a basis for relief.

We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. ___ (2009), to decide

whether, as a matter of federal law, Padilla’s counsel had

an obligation to advise him that the offense to which he

was pleading guilty would result in his removal from this

country. We agree with Padilla that constitutionally

competent counsel would have advised him that his con

viction for drug distribution made him subject to auto

matic deportation. Whether he is entitled to relief de

pends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter that

we do not address.

I

The landscape of federal immigration law has changed

dramatically over the last 90 years. While once there was

only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges

wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deporta

tion, immigration reforms over time have expanded the

class of deportable offenses and limited the authority of

judges to alleviate the harsh consequences of deportation.

The “drastic measure” of deportation or removal, Fong

Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10 (1948), is now virtually

inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of

crimes.

The Nation’s first 100 years was “a period of unimpeded

immigration.” C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration

Law and Procedure §1.(2)(a), p. 5 (1959). An early effort to

empower the President to order the deportation of those

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

Opinion of the Court

immigrants he “judge[d] dangerous to the peace and safety

of the United States,” Act of June 25, 1798, ch. 58, 1 Stat.

571, was short lived and unpopular. Gordon §1.2, at 5. It

was not until 1875 that Congress first passed a statute

barring convicts and prostitutes from entering the coun

try, Act of Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 141, 18 Stat. 477. Gordon

§1.2b, at 6. In 1891, Congress added to the list of exclud

able persons those “who have been convicted of a felony or

other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral

turpitude.” Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084.2

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1917 (1917 Act)

brought “radical changes” to our law. S. Rep. No. 1515,

81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 54–55 (1950). For the first time

in our history, Congress made classes of noncitizens de

portable based on conduct committed on American soil.

Id., at 55. Section 19 of the 1917 Act authorized the de

portation of “any alien who is hereafter sentenced to im

prisonment for a term of one year or more because of

conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpi

tude, committed within five years after the entry of the

alien to the United States . . . .” 39 Stat. 889. And §19

also rendered deportable noncitizen recidivists who com

mit two or more crimes of moral turpitude at any time

after entry. Ibid. Congress did not, however, define the

term “moral turpitude.”

While the 1917 Act was “radical” because it authorized

deportation as a consequence of certain convictions, the

Act also included a critically important procedural protec

tion to minimize the risk of unjust deportation: At the

time of sentencing or within 30 days thereafter, the sen

tencing judge in both state and federal prosecutions had

the power to make a recommendation “that such alien

——————

2 In 1907, Congress expanded the class of excluded persons to include

individuals who “admit” to having committed a crime of moral turpi

tude. Act of Feb. 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat. 899.

4 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

shall not be deported.” Id., at 890.3 This procedure,

known as a judicial recommendation against deportation,

or JRAD, had the effect of binding the Executive to pre

vent deportation; the statute was “consistently . . . inter

preted as giving the sentencing judge conclusive authority

to decide whether a particular conviction should be disre

garded as a basis for deportation,” Janvier v. United

States, 793 F. 2d 449, 452 (CA2 1986). Thus, from 1917

forward, there was no such creature as an automatically

deportable offense. Even as the class of deportable of

fenses expanded, judges retained discretion to ameliorate

unjust results on a case-by-case basis.

Although narcotics offenses—such as the offense at

issue in this case—provided a distinct basis for deporta

tion as early as 1922,4 the JRAD procedure was generally

——————

3 Asenacted, the statute provided:

“That the provision of this section respecting the deportation of aliens

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall not apply to one

who has been pardoned, nor shall such deportation be made or directed

if the court, or judge thereof, sentencing such alien for such crime shall,

at the time of imposing judgment or passing sentence or within thirty

days thereafter, . . . make a recommendation to the Secretary of Labor

that such alien shall not be deported in pursuance of this Act.” 1917

Act, 39 Stat. 889–890.

This provision was codified in 8 U. S. C. §1251(b) (1994 ed.) (transferred

to §1227 (2006 ed. )). The judge’s nondeportation recommendation was

binding on the Secretary of Labor and, later, the Attorney General after

control of immigration removal matters was transferred from the

former to the latter. See Janvier v. United States, 793 F. 2d 449, 452

(CA2 1986).

4 Congress first identified narcotics offenses as a special category of

crimes triggering deportation in the 1922 Narcotic Drug Act. Act of

May 26, 1922, ch. 202, 42 Stat. 596. After the 1922 Act took effect,

there was some initial confusion over whether a narcotics offense also

had to be a crime of moral turpitude for an individual to be deportable.

See Weedin v. Moy Fat, 8 F. 2d 488, 489 (CA9 1925) (holding that an

individual who committed narcotics offense was not deportable because

offense did not involve moral turpitude). However, lower courts even

tually agreed that the narcotics offense provision was “special,” Chung

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

Opinion of the Court

available to avoid deportation in narcotics convictions.

See United States v. O’Rourke, 213 F. 2d 759, 762 (CA8

1954). Except for “technical, inadvertent and insignificant

violations of the laws relating to narcotics,” ibid., it ap

pears that courts treated narcotics offenses as crimes

involving moral turpitude for purposes of the 1917 Act’s

broad JRAD provision. See ibid. (recognizing that until

1952 a JRAD in a narcotics case “was effective to prevent

deportation” (citing Dang Nam v. Bryan, 74 F. 2d 379,

380–381 (CA9 1934))).

In light of both the steady expansion of deportable

offenses and the significant ameliorative effect of a JRAD,

it is unsurprising that, in the wake of Strickland v. Wash

ington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), the Second Circuit held that

the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of

counsel applies to a JRAD request or lack thereof, see

Janvier, 793 F. 2d 449. See also United States v. Castro,

26 F. 3d 557 (CA5 1994). In its view, seeking a JRAD was

“part of the sentencing” process, Janvier, 793 F. 2d, at 452,

even if deportation itself is a civil action. Under the Sec

ond Circuit’s reasoning, the impact of a conviction on a

noncitizen’s ability to remain in the country was a central

issue to be resolved during the sentencing process—not

merely a collateral matter outside the scope of counsel’s

duty to provide effective representation.

However, the JRAD procedure is no longer part of our

law. Congress first circumscribed the JRAD provision in

the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),5 and in

——————

Que Fong v. Nagle, 15 F. 2d 789, 790 (CA9 1926); thus, a narcotics

offense did not need also to be a crime of moral turpitude (or to satisfy

other requirements of the 1917 Act) to trigger deportation. See United

States ex rel. Grimaldi v. Ebey, 12 F. 2d 922, 923 (CA7 1926); Todaro v.

Munster, 62 F. 2d 963, 964 (CA10 1933).

5 The Act separately codified the moral turpitude offense provision

and the narcotics offense provision within 8 U. S. C. §1251(a) (1994 ed.)

under subsections (a)(4) and (a)(11), respectively. See 66 Stat. 201, 204,

6 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

1990 Congress entirely eliminated it, 104 Stat. 5050. In

1996, Congress also eliminated the Attorney General’s

authority to grant discretionary relief from deportation,

110 Stat. 3009–596, an authority that had been exercised

to prevent the deportation of over 10,000 noncitizens

during the 5-year period prior to 1996, INS v. St. Cyr, 533

U. S. 289, 296 (2001). Under contemporary law, if a non

citizen has committed a removable offense after the 1996

effective date of these amendments, his removal is practi

cally inevitable but for the possible exercise of limited

remnants of equitable discretion vested in the Attorney

General to cancel removal for noncitizens convicted of

particular classes of offenses.6 See 8 U. S. C. §1229b.

Subject to limited exceptions, this discretionary relief is

not available for an offense related to trafficking in a

controlled substance. See §1101(a)(43)(B); §1228.

These changes to our immigration law have dramati

cally raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal convic

tion. The importance of accurate legal advice for nonciti

zens accused of crimes has never been more important.

These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of fed

eral law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, some

times the most important part 7—of the penalty that may

be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to

specified crimes.

——————

206. The JRAD procedure, codified in 8 U. S. C. §1251(b) (1994 ed.),

applied only to the “provisions of subsection (a)(4),” the crimes-of-moral

turpitude provision. 66 Stat. 208; see United States v. O’Rourke, 213

F. 2d 759, 762 (CA8 1954) (recognizing that, under the 1952 Act,

narcotics offenses were no longer eligible for JRADs).

6 The changes to our immigration law have also involved a change in

nomenclature; the statutory text now uses the term “removal” rather

than “deportation.” See Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U. S. 348, 350,

n. 1 (2001).

7 See Brief for Asian American Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae

12–27 (providing real-world examples).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010)

7

Opinion of the Court

II

Before deciding whether to plead guilty, a defendant is

entitled to “the effective assistance of competent counsel.”

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 771 (1970); Strick

land, 466 U. S., at 686. The Supreme Court of Kentucky

rejected Padilla’s ineffectiveness claim on the ground that

the advice he sought about the risk of deportation con

cerned only collateral matters, i.e., those matters not

within the sentencing authority of the state trial court.8

253 S. W. 3d, at 483–484 (citing Commonwealth v. Fuar

tado, 170 S. W. 3d 384 (2005)). In its view, “collateral

consequences are outside the scope of representation

required by the Sixth Amendment,” and, therefore, the

“failure of defense counsel to advise the defendant of

possible deportation consequences is not cognizable as a

claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” 253 S. W. 3d,

at 483. The Kentucky high court is far from alone in this

view.9

——————

8 There is some disagreement among the courts over how to distin

guish between direct and collateral consequences. See Roberts, Igno

rance is Effectively Bliss: Collateral Consequences, Silence, and Misin

formation in the Guilty-Plea Process, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 119, 124, n. 15

(2009). The disagreement over how to apply the direct/collateral

distinction has no bearing on the disposition of this case because, as

even JUSTICE ALITO agrees, counsel must, at the very least, advise a

noncitizen “defendant that a criminal conviction may have adverse

immigration consequences,” post, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment).

See also post, at 14 (“I do not mean to suggest that the Sixth Amend

ment does no more than require defense counsel to avoid misinforma

tion”). In his concurring opinion, JUSTICE ALITO has thus departed from

the strict rule applied by the Supreme Court of Kentucky and in the

two federal cases that he cites, post, at 2.

9 See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 202 F. 3d 20 (CA1 2000); United

States v. Del Rosario, 902 F. 2d 55 (CADC 1990); United States v.

Yearwood, 863 F. 2d 6 (CA4 1988); Santos-Sanchez v. United States,

548 F. 3d 327 (CA5 2008); Broomes v. Ashcroft, 358 F. 3d 1251 (CA10

2004); United States v. Campbell, 778 F. 2d 764 (CA11 1985); Oyekoya

v. State, 558 So. 2d 990 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App. 1989); State v. Rosas, 183

8 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

We, however, have never applied a distinction between

direct and collateral consequences to define the scope of

constitutionally “reasonable professional assistance”

required under Strickland, 466 U. S., at 689. Whether

that distinction is appropriate is a question we need not

consider in this case because of the unique nature of

deportation.

We have long recognized that deportation is a particu

larly severe “penalty,” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149

U. S. 698, 740 (1893); but it is not, in a strict sense, a

criminal sanction. Although removal proceedings are civil

in nature, see INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038

(1984), deportation is nevertheless intimately related to

the criminal process. Our law has enmeshed criminal

convictions and the penalty of deportation for nearly a

century, see Part I, supra, at 2–7. And, importantly,

recent changes in our immigration law have made removal

nearly an automatic result for a broad class of noncitizen

offenders. Thus, we find it “most difficult” to divorce the

penalty from the conviction in the deportation context.

United States v. Russell, 686 F. 2d 35, 38 (CADC 1982).

Moreover, we are quite confident that noncitizen defen

dants facing a risk of deportation for a particular offense

find it even more difficult. See St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 322

(“There can be little doubt that, as a general matter, alien

defendants considering whether to enter into a plea

agreement are acutely aware of the immigration conse

quences of their convictions”).

Deportation as a consequence of a criminal conviction is,

because of its close connection to the criminal process,

uniquely difficult to classify as either a direct or a collat

eral consequence. The collateral versus direct distinction

——————

Ariz. 421, 904 P. 2d 1245 (App. 1995); State v. Montalban, 2000–2739

(La. 2/26/02), 810 So. 2d 1106; Commonwealth v. Frometa, 520 Pa. 552,

555 A. 2d 92 (1989).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

Opinion of the Court

is thus ill-suited to evaluating a Strickland claim concern

ing the specific risk of deportation. We conclude that

advice regarding deportation is not categorically removed

from the ambit of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim.

III

Under Strickland, we first determine whether counsel’s

representation “fell below an objective standard of reason

ableness.” 466 U. S., at 688. Then we ask whether “there

is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unpro

fessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have

been different.” Id., at 694. The first prong—constitu

tional deficiency—is necessarily linked to the practice and

expectations of the legal community: “The proper measure

of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness

under prevailing professional norms.” Id., at 688. We long

have recognized that “[p]revailing norms of practice as

reflected in American Bar Association standards and the

like . . . are guides to determining what is reasonable . . . .”

Ibid.; Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (per

curiam) (slip op., at 3); Florida v. Nixon, 543 U. S. 175,

191, and n. 6 (2004); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 524

(2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 396 (2000).

Although they are “only guides,” Strickland, 466 U. S., at

688, and not “inexorable commands,” Bobby, 558 U. S., at

___ (slip op., at 5), these standards may be valuable meas

ures of the prevailing professional norms of effective rep

resentation, especially as these standards have been

adapted to deal with the intersection of modern criminal

prosecutions and immigration law.

The weight of prevailing professional norms supports

the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the

risk of deportation. National Legal Aid and Defender

Assn., Performance Guidelines for Criminal Representa

tion §6.2 (1995); G. Herman, Plea Bargaining §3.03,

10 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

pp. 20–21 (1997); Chin & Holmes, Effective Assistance of

Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas, 87 Cornell

L. Rev. 697, 713–718 (2002); A. Campbell, Law of Sentenc

ing §13:23, pp. 555, 560 (3d ed. 2004); Dept. of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, 2 Compendium of Standards

for Indigent Defense Systems, Standards for Attorney

Performance, pp. D10, H8–H9, J8 (2000) (providing survey

of guidelines across multiple jurisdictions); ABA Stan

dards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and

Defense Function 4–5.1(a), p. 197 (3d ed. 1993); ABA

Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty 14–3.2(f),

p. 116 (3d ed. 1999). “[A]uthorities of every stripe—

including the American Bar Association, criminal defense

and public defender organizations, authoritative treatises,

and state and city bar publications—universally require

defense attorneys to advise as to the risk of deportation

consequences for non-citizen clients . . . .” Brief for Legal

Ethics, Criminal Procedure, and Criminal Law Professors

as Amici Curiae 12–14 (footnotes omitted) (citing, inter

alia, National Legal Aid and Defender Assn., Guidelines,

supra, §§6.2–6.4 (1997); S. Bratton & E. Kelley, Practice

Points: Representing a Noncitizen in a Criminal Case, 31

The Champion 61 (Jan./Feb. 2007); N. Tooby, Criminal

Defense of Immigrants §1.3 (3d ed. 2003); 2 Criminal

Practice Manual §§45:3, 45:15 (2009)).

We too have previously recognized that “ ‘[p]reserving

the client’s right to remain in the United States may be

more important to the client than any potential jail sen

tence.’ ” St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 323 (quoting 3 Criminal

Defense Techniques §§60A.01, 60A.02[2] (1999)). Like

wise, we have recognized that “preserving the possibility

of” discretionary relief from deportation under §212(c) of

the 1952 INA, 66 Stat. 187, repealed by Congress in 1996,

“would have been one of the principal benefits sought by

defendants deciding whether to accept a plea offer or

instead to proceed to trial.” St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 323. We

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

Opinion of the Court

expected that counsel who were unaware of the discre

tionary relief measures would “follo[w] the advice of nu

merous practice guides” to advise themselves of the impor

tance of this particular form of discretionary relief. Ibid.,

n. 50.

In the instant case, the terms of the relevant immigra

tion statute are succinct, clear, and explicit in defining the

removal consequence for Padilla’s conviction. See 8

U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (“Any alien who at any time after

admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a con

spiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a

State, the United States or a foreign country relating to a

controlled substance . . . , other than a single offense in

volving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of

marijuana, is deportable”). Padilla’s counsel could have

easily determined that his plea would make him eligible

for deportation simply from reading the text of the statute,

which addresses not some broad classification of crimes

but specifically commands removal for all controlled sub

stances convictions except for the most trivial of mari

juana possession offenses. Instead, Padilla’s counsel

provided him false assurance that his conviction would not

result in his removal from this country. This is not a hard

case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of

Padilla’s plea could easily be determined from reading the

removal statute, his deportation was presumptively man

datory, and his counsel’s advice was incorrect.

Immigration law can be complex, and it is a legal spe

cialty of its own. Some members of the bar who represent

clients facing criminal charges, in either state or federal

court or both, may not be well versed in it. There will,

therefore, undoubtedly be numerous situations in which

the deportation consequences of a particular plea are

unclear or uncertain. The duty of the private practitioner

in such cases is more limited. When the law is not suc

cinct and straightforward (as it is in many of the scenarios

12 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

posited by JUSTICE ALITO), a criminal defense attorney

need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pend

ing criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigra

tion consequences.10 But when the deportation conse

quence is truly clear, as it was in this case, the duty to

give correct advice is equally clear.

Accepting his allegations as true, Padilla has suffi

ciently alleged constitutional deficiency to satisfy the first

prong of Strickland. Whether Padilla is entitled to relief

on his claim will depend on whether he can satisfy Strick

land’s second prong, prejudice, a matter we leave to the

Kentucky courts to consider in the first instance.

IV

The Solicitor General has urged us to conclude that

Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim only to the extent

that he has alleged affirmative misadvice. In the United

States’ view, “counsel is not constitutionally required to

provide advice on matters that will not be decided in the

criminal case . . . ,” though counsel is required to provide

accurate advice if she chooses to discusses these matters.

Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10.

Respondent and Padilla both find the Solicitor General’s

proposed rule unpersuasive, although it has support

among the lower courts. See, e.g., United States v. Couto,

311 F. 3d 179, 188 (CA2 2002); United States v. Kwan, 407

F. 3d 1005 (CA9 2005); Sparks v. Sowders, 852 F. 2d 882

(CA6 1988); United States v. Russell, 686 F. 2d 35 (CADC

1982); State v. Rojas-Martinez, 2005 UT 86, 125 P. 3d 930,

935; In re Resendiz, 25 Cal. 4th 230, 19 P. 3d 1171 (2001).

Kentucky describes these decisions isolating an affirma

tive misadvice claim as “result-driven, incestuous . . .

——————

10 AsJUSTICE ALITO explains at length, deportation consequences are

often unclear. Lack of clarity in the law, however, does not obviate the

need for counsel to say something about the possibility of deportation,

even though it will affect the scope and nature of counsel’s advice.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

Opinion of the Court

[,and] completely lacking in legal or rational bases.” Brief

for Respondent 31. We do not share that view, but we

agree that there is no relevant difference “between an act

of commission and an act of omission” in this context. Id.,

at 30; Strickland, 466 U. S., at 690 (“The court must then

determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the

identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of

professionally competent assistance”); see also State v.

Paredez, 2004–NMSC–036, 136 N. M. 533, 538–539.

A holding limited to affirmative misadvice would invite

two absurd results. First, it would give counsel an incen

tive to remain silent on matters of great importance, even

when answers are readily available. Silence under these

circumstances would be fundamentally at odds with the

critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of “the

advantages and disadvantages of a plea agreement.”

Libretti v. United States, 516 U. S. 29, 50–51 (1995).

When attorneys know that their clients face possible exile

from this country and separation from their families, they

should not be encouraged to say nothing at all.11 Second,

it would deny a class of clients least able to represent

themselves the most rudimentary advice on deportation

even when it is readily available. It is quintessentially the

duty of counsel to provide her client with available advice

about an issue like deportation and the failure to do so

“clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analy

sis.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, 62 (1985) (White, J.,

——————

11 As the Commonwealth conceded at oral argument, were a defen

dant’s lawyer to know that a particular offense would result in the

client’s deportation and that, upon deportation, the client and his

family might well be killed due to circumstances in the client’s home

country, any decent attorney would inform the client of the conse

quences of his plea. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37–38. We think the same result

should follow when the stakes are not life and death but merely “ban

ishment or exile,” Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 390–391

(1947).

14 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

concurring in judgment).

We have given serious consideration to the concerns

that the Solicitor General, respondent, and amici have

stressed regarding the importance of protecting the final

ity of convictions obtained through guilty pleas. We con

fronted a similar “floodgates” concern in Hill, see id., at

58, but nevertheless applied Strickland to a claim that

counsel had failed to advise the client regarding his parole

eligibility before he pleaded guilty.12

A flood did not follow in that decision’s wake. Sur

mounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.

See, e.g., 466 U. S., at 689 (“Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s

performance must be highly deferential”); id., at 693

(observing that “[a]ttorney errors . . . are as likely to be

utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be

prejudicial”). Moreover, to obtain relief on this type of

claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision

to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under

the circumstances. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S.

470, 480, 486 (2000). There is no reason to doubt that

lower courts—now quite experienced with applying Strick

land—can effectively and efficiently use its framework to

——————

12 However, we concluded that, even though Strickland applied to

petitioner’s claim, he had not sufficiently alleged prejudice to satisfy

Strickland’s second prong. Hill, 474 U. S., at 59–60. This disposition

further underscores the fact that it is often quite difficult for petitioners

who have acknowledged their guilt to satisfy Strickland’s prejudice

prong.

JUSTICE ALITO believes that the Court misreads Hill, post, at 10–11.

In Hill, the Court recognized—for the first time—that Strickland

applies to advice respecting a guilty plea. 474 U. S., at 58 (“We hold,

therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to

challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel”).

It is true that Hill does not control the question before us. But its

import is nevertheless clear. Whether Strickland applies to Padilla’s

claim follows from Hill, regardless of the fact that the Hill Court did

not resolve the particular question respecting misadvice that was

before it.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 15

Opinion of the Court

separate specious claims from those with substantial

merit.

It seems unlikely that our decision today will have a

significant effect on those convictions already obtained as

the result of plea bargains. For at least the past 15 years,

professional norms have generally imposed an obligation

on counsel to provide advice on the deportation conse

quences of a client’s plea. See, supra, at 11–13. We

should, therefore, presume that counsel satisfied their

obligation to render competent advice at the time their

clients considered pleading guilty. Strickland, 466 U. S.,

at 689.

Likewise, although we must be especially careful about

recognizing new grounds for attacking the validity of

guilty pleas, in the 25 years since we first applied Strick

land to claims of ineffective assistance at the plea stage,

practice has shown that pleas are less frequently the

subject of collateral challenges than convictions obtained

after a trial. Pleas account for nearly 95% of all criminal

convictions.13 But they account for only approximately

30% of the habeas petitions filed.14 The nature of relief

secured by a successful collateral challenge to a guilty

plea—an opportunity to withdraw the plea and proceed to

trial—imposes its own significant limiting principle: Those

who collaterally attack their guilty pleas lose the benefit of

the bargain obtained as a result of the plea. Thus, a dif

ferent calculus informs whether it is wise to challenge a

——————

13 See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of

Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, p. 418 (31st ed. 2005) (Table 5.17)

(only approximately 5%, or 8,612 out of 68,533, of federal criminal

prosecutions go to trial); id., at 450 (Table 5.46) (only approximately 5%

of all state felony criminal prosecutions go to trial).

14 See V. Flango, National Center for State Courts, Habeas Corpus in

State and Federal Courts 36–38 (1994) (demonstrating that 5% of

defendants whose conviction was the result of a trial account for ap

proximately 70% of the habeas petitions filed).

16 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

guilty plea in a habeas proceeding because, ultimately,

the challenge may result in a less favorable outcome for

the defendant, whereas a collateral challenge to a convic

tion obtained after a jury trial has no similar downside

potential.

Finally, informed consideration of possible deportation

can only benefit both the State and noncitizen defendants

during the plea-bargaining process. By bringing deporta

tion consequences into this process, the defense and prose

cution may well be able to reach agreements that better

satisfy the interests of both parties. As in this case, a

criminal episode may provide the basis for multiple

charges, of which only a subset mandate deportation

following conviction. Counsel who possess the most rudi

mentary understanding of the deportation consequences of

a particular criminal offense may be able to plea bargain

creatively with the prosecutor in order to craft a conviction

and sentence that reduce the likelihood of deportation, as

by avoiding a conviction for an offense that automatically

triggers the removal consequence. At the same time, the

threat of deportation may provide the defendant with a

powerful incentive to plead guilty to an offense that does

not mandate that penalty in exchange for a dismissal of a

charge that does.

In sum, we have long recognized that the negotiation of

a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes

of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of

counsel. Hill, 474 U. S., at 57; see also Richardson, 397

U. S., at 770–771. The severity of deportation—“the

equivalent of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v. Carmi

chael, 332 U. S. 388, 390–391 (1947)—only underscores

how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client

that he faces a risk of deportation.15

——————

15 To this end, we find it significant that the plea form currently used

in Kentucky courts provides notice of possible immigration conse

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 17

Opinion of the Court

V

It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure

that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is

left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson,

397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now

hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea

carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth

Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as

a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant

impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this

country demand no less.

Taking as true the basis for his motion for postconvic

tion relief, we have little difficulty concluding that Padilla

has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitution

ally deficient. Whether Padilla is entitled to relief will

depend on whether he can demonstrate prejudice as a

result thereof, a question we do not reach because it was

not passed on below. See Verizon Communications Inc. v.

FCC, 535 U. S. 467, 530 (2002).

——————

quences. Ky. Admin. Office of Courts, Motion to Enter Guilty Plea,

Form AOC–491 (Rev. 2/2003), http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/

55E1F54E-ED5C-4A30-B1D5-4C43C7ADD63C/0/491.pdf (as visited

Mar. 29, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Further,

many States require trial courts to advise defendants of possible

immigration consequences. See, e.g., Alaska Rule Crim. Proc.

11(c)(3)(C) (2009–2010); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1016.5 (West 2008);

Conn. Gen. Stat. §54–1j (2009); D. C. Code §16–713 (2001); Fla. Rule

Crim. Proc. 3.172(c)(8) (Supp. 2010); Ga. Code Ann. §17–7–93(c) (1997);

Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. §802E–2 (2007); Iowa Rule Crim. Proc.

2.8(2)(b)(3) (Supp. 2009); Md. Rule 4–242 (Lexis 2009); Mass. Gen.

Laws, ch. 278, §29D (2009); Minn. Rule Crim. Proc. 15.01 (2009); Mont.

Code Ann. §46–12–210 (2009); N. M. Rule Crim. Form 9–406 (2009); N.

Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §220.50(7) (West Supp. 2009); N. C. Gen. Stat.

Ann. §15A–1022 (Lexis 2007); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2943.031 (West

2006); Ore. Rev. Stat. §135.385 (2007); R. I. Gen. Laws §12–12–22

(Lexis Supp. 2008); Tex. Code. Ann. Crim. Proc., Art. 26.13(a)(4)

(Vernon Supp. 2009); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, §6565(c)(1) (Supp. 2009);

Wash. Rev. Code §10.40.200 (2008); Wis. Stat. §971.08 (2005–2006).

18 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

Opinion of the Court

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Kentucky is

reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings

not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–651

_________________

JOSE PADILLA, PETITIONER v. KENTUCKY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

KENTUCKY

[March 31, 2010]

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins,

concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment because a criminal defense

attorney fails to provide effective assistance within the

meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668

(1984), if the attorney misleads a noncitizen client regard

ing the removal consequences of a conviction. In my view,

such an attorney must (1) refrain from unreasonably

providing incorrect advice and (2) advise the defendant

that a criminal conviction may have adverse immigration

consequences and that, if the alien wants advice on this

issue, the alien should consult an immigration attorney. I

do not agree with the Court that the attorney must at

tempt to explain what those consequences may be. As the

Court concedes, “[i]mmigration law can be complex”; “it is

a legal specialty of its own”; and “[s]ome members of the

bar who represent clients facing criminal charges, in

either state or federal court or both, may not be well

versed in it.” Ante, at 11. The Court nevertheless holds

that a criminal defense attorney must provide advice in

this specialized area in those cases in which the law is

“succinct and straightforward”—but not, perhaps, in other

situations. Ante, at 11–12. This vague, halfway test will

lead to much confusion and needless litigation.

2 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

I

Under Strickland, an attorney provides ineffective

assistance if the attorney’s representation does not meet

reasonable professional standards. 466 U. S., at 688.

Until today, the longstanding and unanimous position of

the federal courts was that reasonable defense counsel

generally need only advise a client about the direct conse

quences of a criminal conviction. See, e.g., United States v.

Gonzalez, 202 F. 3d 20, 28 (CA1 2000) (ineffective

assistance-of-counsel claim fails if “based on an attorney’s

failure to advise a client of his plea’s immigration conse

quences”); United States v. Banda, 1 F. 3d 354, 355 (CA5

1993) (holding that “an attorney’s failure to advise a client

that deportation is a possible consequence of a guilty plea

does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel”); see

generally Chin & Holmes, Effective Assistance of Counsel

and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas, 87 Cornell L. Rev.

697, 699 (2002) (hereinafter Chin & Holmes) (noting that

“virtually all jurisdictions”—including “eleven federal

circuits, more than thirty states, and the District of Co

lumbia”—“hold that defense counsel need not discuss with

their clients the collateral consequences of a conviction,”

including deportation). While the line between “direct”

and “collateral” consequences is not always clear, see ante,

at 7, n. 8, the collateral-consequences rule expresses an

important truth: Criminal defense attorneys have exper

tise regarding the conduct of criminal proceedings. They

are not expected to possess—and very often do not pos

sess—expertise in other areas of the law, and it is unreal

istic to expect them to provide expert advice on matters

that lie outside their area of training and experience.

This case happens to involve removal, but criminal

convictions can carry a wide variety of consequences other

than conviction and sentencing, including civil commit

ment, civil forfeiture, the loss of the right to vote, disquali

fication from public benefits, ineligibility to possess fire

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

arms, dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces, and

loss of business or professional licenses. Chin & Holmes

705–706. A criminal conviction may also severely damage

a defendant’s reputation and thus impair the defendant’s

ability to obtain future employment or business opportuni

ties. All of those consequences are “seriou[s],” see ante, at

17, but this Court has never held that a criminal defense

attorney’s Sixth Amendment duties extend to providing

advice about such matters.

The Court tries to justify its dramatic departure from

precedent by pointing to the views of various professional

organizations. See ante, at 9 (“The weight of prevailing

professional norms supports the view that counsel must

advise her client regarding the risk of deportation”).

However, ascertaining the level of professional competence

required by the Sixth Amendment is ultimately a task for

the courts. E.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S. 470, 477

(2000). Although we may appropriately consult standards

promulgated by private bar groups, we cannot delegate to

these groups our task of determining what the Constitu

tion commands. See Strickland, supra, at 688 (explaining

that “[p]revailing norms of practice as reflected in Ameri

can Bar Association standards . . . are guides to determin

ing what is reasonable, but they are only guides”). And we

must recognize that such standards may represent only

the aspirations of a bar group rather than an empirical

assessment of actual practice.

Even if the only relevant consideration were “prevailing

professional norms,” it is hard to see how those norms can

support the duty the Court today imposes on defense

counsel. Because many criminal defense attorneys have

little understanding of immigration law, see ante, at 11, it

should follow that a criminal defense attorney who re

frains from providing immigration advice does not violate

prevailing professional norms. But the Court’s opinion

would not just require defense counsel to warn the client

4 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

of a general risk of removal; it would also require counsel

in at least some cases, to specify what the removal conse

quences of a conviction would be. See ante, at 11–12.

The Court’s new approach is particularly problematic

because providing advice on whether a conviction for a

particular offense will make an alien removable is often

quite complex. “Most crimes affecting immigration status

are not specifically mentioned by the [Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA)], but instead fall under a broad

category of crimes, such as crimes involving moral turpi

tude or aggravated felonies.” M. Garcia & L. Eig, CRS

Report for Congress, Immigration Consequences of Crimi

nal Activity (Sept. 20, 2006) (summary) (emphasis in

original). As has been widely acknowledged, determining

whether a particular crime is an “aggravated felony” or a

“crime involving moral turpitude [(CIMT)]” is not an easy

task. See R. McWhirter, ABA, The Criminal Lawyer’s

Guide to Immigration Law: Questions and Answers 128

(2d ed. 2006) (hereinafter ABA Guidebook) (“Because of

the increased complexity of aggravated felony law, this

edition devotes a new [30-page] chapter to the subject”);

id., §5.2, at 146 (stating that the aggravated felony list at

8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43) is not clear with respect to several

of the listed categories, that “the term ‘aggravated felonies’

can include misdemeanors,” and that the determination of

whether a crime is an “aggravated felony” is made “even

more difficult” because “several agencies and courts inter

pret the statute,” including Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),

and Federal Circuit and district courts considering immi

gration-law and criminal-law issues); ABA Guidebook

§4.65, at 130 (“Because nothing is ever simple with immi

gration law, the terms ‘conviction,’ ‘moral turpitude,’ and

‘single scheme of criminal misconduct’ are terms of art”);

id., §4.67, at 130 (“[T]he term ‘moral turpitude’ evades

precise definition”).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

Defense counsel who consults a guidebook on whether a

particular crime is an “aggravated felony” will often find

that the answer is not ‘‘easily ascertained.” For example,

the ABA Guidebook answers the question “Does simple

possession count as an aggravated felony?” as follows:

“Yes, at least in the Ninth Circuit.” §5.35, at 160 (empha

sis added). After a dizzying paragraph that attempts to

explain the evolution of the Ninth Circuit’s view, the ABA

Guidebook continues: “Adding to the confusion, however,

is that the Ninth Circuit has conflicting opinions depend

ing on the context on whether simple drug possession

constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U. S. C.

§1101(a)(43).” Id., §5.35, at 161 (citing cases distinguish

ing between whether a simple possession offense is an

aggravated felony “for immigration purposes” or for “sen

tencing purposes”). The ABA Guidebook then proceeds to

explain that “attempted possession,” id., §5.36, at 161

(emphasis added), of a controlled substance is an aggra

vated felony, while “[c]onviction under the federal acces

sory after the fact statute is probably not an aggravated

felony, but a conviction for accessory after the fact to the

manufacture of methamphetamine is an aggravated fel

ony,” id., §537, at 161 (emphasis added). Conspiracy or

attempt to commit drug trafficking are aggravated felo

nies, but “[s]olicitation is not a drug-trafficking offense

because a generic solicitation offense is not an offense

related to a controlled substance and therefore not an

aggravated felony.” Id., §5.41, at 162.

Determining whether a particular crime is one involving

moral turpitude is no easier. See id., at 134 (“Writing bad

checks may or may not be a CIMT” (emphasis added));

ibid. (“[R]eckless assault coupled with an element of in

jury, but not serious injury, is probably not a CIMT” (em

phasis added)); id., at 135 (misdemeanor driving under the

influence is generally not a CIMT, but may be a CIMT if

the DUI results in injury or if the driver knew that his

6 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

license had been suspended or revoked); id., at 136 (“If

there is no element of actual injury, the endangerment

offense may not be a CIMT” (emphasis added)); ibid.

(“Whether [a child abuse] conviction involves moral turpi

tude may depend on the subsection under which the indi

vidual is convicted. Child abuse done with criminal negli

gence probably is not a CIMT” (emphasis added)).

Many other terms of the INA are similarly ambiguous or

may be confusing to practitioners not versed in the intri

cacies of immigration law. To take just a few examples, it

may be hard, in some cases, for defense counsel even to

determine whether a client is an alien,1 or whether a

particular state disposition will result in a “conviction” for

purposes of federal immigration law.2 The task of offering

advice about the immigration consequences of a criminal

conviction is further complicated by other problems, in

cluding significant variations among Circuit interpreta

tions of federal immigration statutes; the frequency with

——————

1 Citizensare not deportable, but “[q]uestions of citizenship are not

always simple.” ABA Guidebook §4.20, at 113 (explaining that U.S.

citizenship conferred by blood is “ ‘derivative,’ ” and that “[d]erivative

citizenship depends on a number of confusing factors, including

whether the citizen parent was the mother or father, the immigration

laws in effect at the time of the parents’ and/or defendant’s birth, and

the parents’ marital status”).

2 “A disposition that is not a ‘conviction,’ under state law may still be

a ‘conviction’ for immigration purposes.” Id., §4.32, at 117 (citing

Matter of Salazar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223, 231 (BIA 2002) (en banc)). For

example, state law may define the term “conviction” not to include a

deferred adjudication, but such an adjudication would be deemed a

conviction for purposes of federal immigration law. See ABA Guide

book §4.37; accord, D. Kesselbrenner & L. Rosenberg, Immigration Law

and Crimes §2:1, p. 2–2 (2008) (hereinafter Immigration Law and

Crimes) (“A practitioner or respondent will not even know whether the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Executive Office for

Immigration Review (EOIR) will treat a particular state disposition as

a conviction for immigration purposes. In fact, the [BIA] treats certain

state criminal dispositions as convictions even though the state treats

the same disposition as a dismissal”).

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 7

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

which immigration law changes; different rules governing

the immigration consequences of juvenile, first-offender,

and foreign convictions; and the relationship between the

“length and type of sentence” and the determination

“whether [an alien] is subject to removal, eligible for relief

from removal, or qualified to become a naturalized citi

zen,” Immigration Law and Crimes §2:1, at 2–2 to 2–3.

In short, the professional organizations and guidebooks

on which the Court so heavily relies are right to say that

“nothing is ever simple with immigration law”—including

the determination whether immigration law clearly makes

a particular offense removable. ABA Guidebook §4.65, at

130; Immigration Law and Crimes §2:1. I therefore can

not agree with the Court’s apparent view that the Sixth

Amendment requires criminal defense attorneys to pro

vide immigration advice.

The Court tries to downplay the severity of the burden it

imposes on defense counsel by suggesting that the scope of

counsel’s duty to offer advice concerning deportation con

sequences may turn on how hard it is to determine those

consequences. Where “the terms of the relevant immigra

tion statute are succinct, clear, and explicit in defining the

removal consequence[s]” of a conviction, the Court says,

counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the client that

he will be subject to deportation as a result of the plea.

Ante, at 11. But “[w]hen the law is not succinct and

straightforward . . . , a criminal defense attorney need do

no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending

criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration

consequences.” Ante, at 11–12. This approach is problem

atic for at least four reasons.

First, it will not always be easy to tell whether a par

ticular statutory provision is “succinct, clear, and explicit.”

How can an attorney who lacks general immigration law

expertise be sure that a seemingly clear statutory provi

sion actually means what it seems to say when read in

8 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

isolation? What if the application of the provision to a

particular case is not clear but a cursory examination of

case law or administrative decisions would provide a

definitive answer? See Immigration Law and Crimes §2:1,

at 2–2 (“Unfortunately, a practitioner or respondent can

not tell easily whether a conviction is for a removable

offense. . . . [T]he cautious practitioner or apprehensive

respondent will not know conclusively the future immigra

tion consequences of a guilty plea”).

Second, if defense counsel must provide advice regard

ing only one of the many collateral consequences of a

criminal conviction, many defendants are likely to be

misled. To take just one example, a conviction for a par

ticular offense may render an alien excludable but not

removable. If an alien charged with such an offense is

advised only that pleading guilty to such an offense will

not result in removal, the alien may be induced to enter a

guilty plea without realizing that a consequence of the

plea is that the alien will be unable to reenter the United

States if the alien returns to his or her home country for

any reason, such as to visit an elderly parent or to attend

a funeral. See ABA Guidebook §4.14, at 111 (“Often the

alien is both excludable and removable. At times, how

ever, the lists are different. Thus, the oddity of an alien

that is inadmissible but not deportable. This alien should

not leave the United States because the government will

not let him back in” (emphasis in original)). Incomplete

legal advice may be worse than no advice at all because it

may mislead and may dissuade the client from seeking

advice from a more knowledgeable source.

Third, the Court’s rigid constitutional rule could inad

vertently head off more promising ways of addressing the

underlying problem—such as statutory or administrative

reforms requiring trial judges to inform a defendant on the

record that a guilty plea may carry adverse immigration

consequences. As amici point out, “28 states and the

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 9

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

District of Columbia have already adopted rules, plea

forms, or statutes requiring courts to advise criminal

defendants of the possible immigration consequences of

their pleas.” Brief for State of Louisiana et al. 25; accord,

Chin & Holmes 708 (“A growing number of states require

advice about deportation by statute or court rule”). A

nonconstitutional rule requiring trial judges to inform

defendants on the record of the risk of adverse immigra

tion consequences can ensure that a defendant receives

needed information without putting a large number of

criminal convictions at risk; and because such a warning

would be given on the record, courts would not later have

to determine whether the defendant was misrepresenting

the advice of counsel. Likewise, flexible statutory proce

dures for withdrawing guilty pleas might give courts

appropriate discretion to determine whether the interests

of justice would be served by allowing a particular defen

dant to withdraw a plea entered into on the basis of in

complete information. Cf. United States v. Russell, 686

F. 2d 35, 39–40 (CADC 1982) (explaining that a district

court’s discretion to set aside a guilty plea under the Fed

eral Rules of Criminal Procedure should be guided by,

among other considerations, “the possible existence of

prejudice to the government’s case as a result of the de

fendant’s untimely request to stand trial” and “the

strength of the defendant’s reason for withdrawing the

plea, including whether the defendant asserts his inno

cence of the charge”).

Fourth, the Court’s decision marks a major upheaval in

Sixth Amendment law. This Court decided Strickland in

1984, but the majority does not cite a single case, from this

or any other federal court, holding that criminal defense

counsel’s failure to provide advice concerning the removal

consequences of a criminal conviction violates a defen

dant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. As noted above,

the Court’s view has been rejected by every Federal Court

10 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

of Appeals to have considered the issue thus far. See, e.g.,

Gonzalez, 202 F. 3d, at 28; Banda, 1 F. 3d, at 355; Chin &

Holmes 697, 699. The majority appropriately acknowl

edges that the lower courts are “now quite experienced

with applying Strickland,” ante, at 14, but it casually

dismisses the longstanding and unanimous position of

the lower federal courts with respect to the scope of

criminal defense counsel’s duty to advise on collateral

consequences.

The majority seeks to downplay its dramatic expansion

of the scope of criminal defense counsel’s duties under the

Sixth Amendment by claiming that this Court in Hill v.

Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52 (1985), similarly “applied Strick

land to a claim that counsel had failed to advise the client

regarding his parole eligibility before he pleaded guilty.”

Ante, at 14. That characterization of Hill obscures much

more than it reveals. The issue in Hill was whether a

criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel

was violated where counsel misinformed the client about

his eligibility for parole. The Court found it “unnecessary

to determine whether there may be circumstances under

which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility

may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of

counsel, because in the present case we conclude that

petitioner’s allegations are insufficient to satisfy the

Strickland v. Washington requirement of ‘prejudice.’ ” 474

U. S., at 60. Given that Hill expressly and unambiguously

refused to decide whether criminal defense counsel must

avoid misinforming his or her client as to one consequence

of a criminal conviction (parole eligibility), that case

plainly provides no support whatsoever for the proposition

that counsel must affirmatively advise his or her client as

to another collateral consequence (removal). By the

Court’s strange logic, Hill would support its decision here

even if the Court had held that misadvice concerning

parole eligibility does not make counsel’s performance

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 11

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

objectively unreasonable. After all, the Court still would

have “applied Strickland” to the facts of the case at hand.

II

While mastery of immigration law is not required by

Strickland, several considerations support the conclu

sion that affirmative misadvice regarding the removal

consequences of a conviction may constitute ineffective

assistance.

First, a rule prohibiting affirmative misadvice regarding

a matter as crucial to the defendant’s plea decision as

deportation appears faithful to the scope and nature of the

Sixth Amendment duty this Court has recognized in its

past cases. In particular, we have explained that “a guilty

plea cannot be attacked as based on inadequate legal

advice unless counsel was not ‘a reasonably competent

attorney’ and the advice was not ‘within the range of

competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.’ ”

Strickland, 466 U. S., at 687 (quoting McMann v. Richard

son, 397 U. S. 759, 770, 771 (1970); emphasis added). As

the Court appears to acknowledge, thorough understand

ing of the intricacies of immigration law is not “within the

range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal

cases.” See ante, at 11 (“Immigration law can be complex,

and it is a legal specialty of its own. Some members of the

bar who represent clients facing criminal charges, in

either state or federal court or both, may not be well

versed in it”). By contrast, reasonably competent attor

neys should know that it is not appropriate or responsible

to hold themselves out as authorities on a difficult and

complicated subject matter with which they are not famil

iar. Candor concerning the limits of one’s professional

expertise, in other words, is within the range of duties

reasonably expected of defense attorneys in criminal cases.

As the dissenting judge on the Kentucky Supreme Court

put it, “I do not believe it is too much of a burden to place

12 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

on our defense bar the duty to say, ‘I do not know.’ ” 253

S. W. 3d 482, 485 (2008).

Second, incompetent advice distorts the defendant’s

decisionmaking process and seems to call the fairness and

integrity of the criminal proceeding itself into question.

See Strickland, 466 U. S., at 686 (“In giving meaning to

the requirement [of effective assistance of counsel], we

must take its purpose—to ensure a fair trial—as the

guide”). When a defendant opts to plead guilty without

definitive information concerning the likely effects of the

plea, the defendant can fairly be said to assume the risk

that the conviction may carry indirect consequences of

which he or she is not aware. That is not the case when a

defendant bases the decision to plead guilty on counsel’s

express misrepresentation that the defendant will not be

removable. In the latter case, it seems hard to say that

the plea was entered with the advice of constitutionally

competent counsel—or that it embodies a voluntary and

intelligent decision to forsake constitutional rights. See

ibid. (“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffec

tiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so under

mined the proper functioning of the adversarial process

that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just

result”).

Third, a rule prohibiting unreasonable misadvice re

garding exceptionally important collateral matters would

not deter or interfere with ongoing political and adminis

trative efforts to devise fair and reasonable solutions to

the difficult problem posed by defendants who plead

guilty without knowing of certain important collateral

consequences.

Finally, the conclusion that affirmative misadvice re

garding the removal consequences of a conviction can give

rise to ineffective assistance would, unlike the Court’s

approach, not require any upheaval in the law. As the

Solicitor General points out, “[t]he vast majority of the

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 13

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

lower courts considering claims of ineffective assistance in

the plea context have [distinguished] between defense

counsel who remain silent and defense counsel who give

affirmative misadvice.” Brief for United States as Amicus

Curiae 8 (citing cases). At least three Courts of Appeals

have held that affirmative misadvice on immigration

matters can give rise to ineffective assistance of counsel,

at least in some circumstances.3 And several other Cir-

cuits have held that affirmative misadvice concerning

nonimmigration consequences of a conviction can violate

the Sixth Amendment even if those consequences might be

deemed “collateral.”4 By contrast, it appears that no court

of appeals holds that affirmative misadvice concerning

collateral consequences in general and removal in particu-

lar can never give rise to ineffective assistance. In short,

——————

3 See United States v. Kwan, 407 F. 3d 1005, 1015–1017 (CA9 2005);

United States v. Couto, 311 F. 3d 179, 188 (CA2 2002); Downs-Morgan

v. United States, 765 F. 2d 1534, 1540–1541 (CA11 1985) (limiting

holding to the facts of the case); see also Santos-Sanchez v. United

States, 548 F. 3d 327, 333–334 (CA5 2008) (concluding that counsel’s

advice was not objectively unreasonable where counsel did not purport

to answer questions about immigration law, did not claim any expertise

in immigration law, and simply warned of “possible” deportation

consequence; use of the word “possible” was not an affirmative misrep-

resentation, even though it could indicate that deportation was not a

certain consequence).

4 See Hill v. Lockhart, 894 F. 2d 1009, 1010 (CA8 1990) (en banc)

(“[T]he erroneous parole-eligibility advice given to Mr. Hill was ineffec-

tive assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington”); Sparks v.

Sowders, 852 F. 2d 882, 885 (CA6 1988) (“[G]ross misadvice concerning

parole eligibility can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel”); id.,

at 886 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“When the maximum possible expo-

sure is overstated, the defendant might well be influenced to accept a

plea agreement he would otherwise reject”); Strader v. Garrison, 611

F. 2d 61, 65 (CA4 1979) (“[T]hough parole eligibility dates are collateral

consequences of the entry of a guilty plea of which a defendant need not

be informed if he does not inquire, when he is grossly misinformed

about it by his lawyer, and relies upon that misinformation, he is

deprived of his constitutional right to counsel”).

14 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

the considered and thus far unanimous view of the lower

federal courts charged with administering Strickland

clearly supports the conclusion that that Kentucky Su

preme Court’s position goes too far.

In concluding that affirmative misadvice regarding the

removal consequences of a criminal conviction may consti

tute ineffective assistance, I do not mean to suggest that

the Sixth Amendment does no more than require defense

counsel to avoid misinformation. When a criminal defense

attorney is aware that a client is an alien, the attorney

should advise the client that a criminal conviction may

have adverse consequences under the immigration laws

and that the client should consult an immigration special

ist if the client wants advice on that subject. By putting

the client on notice of the danger of removal, such advice

would significantly reduce the chance that the client

would plead guilty under a mistaken premise.

III

In sum, a criminal defense attorney should not be re

quired to provide advice on immigration law, a complex

specialty that generally lies outside the scope of a criminal

defense attorney’s expertise. On the other hand, any

competent criminal defense attorney should appreciate the

extraordinary importance that the risk of removal might

have in the client’s determination whether to enter a

guilty plea. Accordingly, unreasonable and incorrect

information concerning the risk of removal can give rise to

an ineffectiveness claim. In addition, silence alone is not

enough to satisfy counsel’s duty to assist the client. In

stead, an alien defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to

counsel is satisfied if defense counsel advises the client

that a conviction may have immigration consequences,

that immigration law is a specialized field, that the attor

ney is not an immigration lawyer, and that the client

should consult an immigration specialist if the client

wants advice on that subject.

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1

SCALIA, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 08–651

_________________

JOSE PADILLA, PETITIONER v. KENTUCKY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

KENTUCKY

[March 31, 2010]

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,

dissenting.

In the best of all possible worlds, criminal defendants

contemplating a guilty plea ought to be advised of all

serious collateral consequences of conviction, and surely

ought not to be misadvised. The Constitution, however, is

not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect

world; and when we ignore its text in order to make it

that, we often find ourselves swinging a sledge where a

tack hammer is needed.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a lawyer

“for his defense” against a “criminal prosecutio[n]”—not

for sound advice about the collateral consequences of

conviction. For that reason, and for the practical reasons

set forth in Part I of JUSTICE ALITO’s concurrence, I dis

sent from the Court’s conclusion that the Sixth Amend

ment requires counsel to provide accurate advice concern

ing the potential removal consequences of a guilty plea.

For the same reasons, but unlike the concurrence, I do not

believe that affirmative misadvice about those conse

quences renders an attorney’s assistance in defending

against the prosecution constitutionally inadequate; or

that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to warn im

migrant defendants that a conviction may render them

removable. Statutory provisions can remedy these con

cerns in a more targeted fashion, and without producing

2 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

SCALIA, J., dissenting

permanent, and legislatively irreparable, overkill.

* * *

The Sixth Amendment as originally understood and

ratified meant only that a defendant had a right to employ

counsel, or to use volunteered services of counsel. See,

United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169, 173 (1891); W.

Beaney, Right to Counsel in American Courts 21, 28–29

(1955). We have held, however, that the Sixth Amend

ment requires the provision of counsel to indigent defen

dants at government expense, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372

U. S. 335, 344–345 (1963), and that the right to “the assis

tance of counsel” includes the right to effective assistance,

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 686 (1984). Even

assuming the validity of these holdings, I reject the sig

nificant further extension that the Court, and to a lesser

extent the concurrence, would create. We have until today

at least retained the Sixth Amendment’s textual limita

tion to criminal prosecutions. “[W]e have held that ‘de

fence’ means defense at trial, not defense in relation to

other objectives that may be important to the accused.”

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U. S. ___, ___ (2008)

(ALITO, J., concurring) (slip op., at 4) (summarizing cases).

We have limited the Sixth Amendment to legal advice

directly related to defense against prosecution of the

charged offense—advice at trial, of course, but also advice

at postindictment interrogations and lineups, Massiah v.

United States, 377 U. S. 201, 205–206 (1964); United

States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 236–238 (1967), and in

general advice at all phases of the prosecution where the

defendant would be at a disadvantage when pitted alone

against the legally trained agents of the state, see Moran

v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 430 (1986). Not only have we

not required advice of counsel regarding consequences

collateral to prosecution, we have not even required coun

sel appointed to defend against one prosecution to be

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 3

SCALIA, J., dissenting

present when the defendant is interrogated in connection

with another possible prosecution arising from the same

event. Texas v. Cobb, 532 U. S. 162, 164 (2001).

There is no basis in text or in principle to extend the

constitutionally required advice regarding guilty pleas

beyond those matters germane to the criminal prosecution

at hand—to wit, the sentence that the plea will produce,

the higher sentence that conviction after trial might en

tail, and the chances of such a conviction. Such matters

fall within “the range of competence demanded of attor

neys in criminal cases,” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S.

759, 771 (1970). See id., at 769–770 (describing the mat

ters counsel and client must consider in connection with a

contemplated guilty plea). We have never held, as the

logic of the Court’s opinion assumes, that once counsel is

appointed all professional responsibilities of counsel—even

those extending beyond defense against the prosecution—

become constitutional commands. Cf. Cobb, supra, at 171,

n. 2; Moran, supra, at 430. Because the subject of the

misadvice here was not the prosecution for which Jose

Padilla was entitled to effective assistance of counsel, the

Sixth Amendment has no application.

Adding to counsel’s duties an obligation to advise about

a conviction’s collateral consequences has no logical stop

ping-point. As the concurrence observes,

“[A] criminal convictio[n] can carry a wide variety of

consequences other than conviction and sentencing,

including civil commitment, civil forfeiture, the loss of

the right to vote, disqualification from public benefits,

ineligibility to possess firearms, dishonorable dis

charge from the Armed Forces, and loss of business or

professional licenses. . . . All of those consequences are

‘serious,’ . . . .” Ante, at 2–3 (ALITO, J., concurring in

judgment).

But it seems to me that the concurrence suffers from the

4 PADILLA v. KENTUCKY

SCALIA, J., dissenting

same defect. The same indeterminacy, the same inability

to know what areas of advice are relevant, attaches to

misadvice. And the concurrence’s suggestion that counsel

must warn defendants of potential removal consequences,

see ante, at 14–15—what would come to be known as the

“Padilla warning”—cannot be limited to those conse

quences except by judicial caprice. It is difficult to believe

that the warning requirement would not be extended, for

example, to the risk of heightened sentences in later fed

eral prosecutions pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal

Act, 18 U. S. C. §924(e). We could expect years of elabora

tion upon these new issues in the lower courts, prompted

by the defense bar’s devising of ever-expanding categories

of plea-invalidating misadvice and failures to warn—not to

mention innumerable evidentiary hearings to determine

whether misadvice really occurred or whether the warning

was really given.

The concurrence’s treatment of misadvice seems driven

by concern about the voluntariness of Padilla’s guilty plea.

See ante, at 12. But that concern properly relates to the

Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend

ments, not to the Sixth Amendment. See McCarthy v.

United States, 394 U. S. 459, 466 (1969); Brady v. United

States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970). Padilla has not argued

before us that his guilty plea was not knowing and volun

tary. If that is, however, the true substance of his claim

(and if he has properly preserved it) the state court can

address it on remand.1 But we should not smuggle the

——————

1I

do not mean to suggest that the Due Process Clause would surely

provide relief. We have indicated that awareness of “direct conse

quences” suffices for the validity of a guilty plea. See Brady, 397 U. S.,

at 755 (internal quotation marks omitted). And the required colloquy

between a federal district court and a defendant required by Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) (formerly Rule 11(c)), which we have

said approximates the due process requirements for a valid plea, see

Libretti v. United States, 516 U. S. 29, 49–50 (1995), does not mention

Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 5

SCALIA, J., dissenting

claim into the Sixth Amendment.

The Court’s holding prevents legislation that could solve

the problems addressed by today’s opinions in a more

precise and targeted fashion. If the subject had not been

constitutionalized, legislation could specify which catego

ries of misadvice about matters ancillary to the prosecu

tion invalidate plea agreements, what collateral conse

quences counsel must bring to a defendant’s attention, and

what warnings must be given.2 Moreover, legislation

could provide consequences for the misadvice, nonadvice,

or failure to warn, other than nullification of a criminal

conviction after the witnesses and evidence needed for

retrial have disappeared. Federal immigration law might

provide, for example, that the near-automatic removal

which follows from certain criminal convictions will not

apply where the conviction rested upon a guilty plea in

duced by counsel’s misadvice regarding removal conse

quences. Or legislation might put the government to a

choice in such circumstances: Either retry the defendant

or forgo the removal. But all that has been precluded in

favor of today’s sledge hammer.

In sum, the Sixth Amendment guarantees adequate

assistance of counsel in defending against a pending

criminal prosecution. We should limit both the constitu

tional obligation to provide advice and the consequences of

bad advice to that well defined area.

——————

collateral consequences. Whatever the outcome, however, the effect of

misadvice regarding such consequences upon the validity of a guilty

plea should be analyzed under the Due Process Clause.

2 As the Court’s opinion notes, ante, at 16–17, n. 15, many States—

including Kentucky—already require that criminal defendants be

warned of potential removal consequences.