Online Symposium on Chaidez v. US: Is Padilla Retroactive?

Tomorrow morning the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820, a case asking the Court to decide whether its landmark decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), applies retroactively. With the help of 11 outstanding contributors, and following in the footsteps of our inaugural online symposium on Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11-702, this symposium gathers advocates from across the immigration law spectrum: individuals who have been integrally involved in the litigation before the Court, practitioners who have successfully litigated Padilla claims in state and federal courts across the country, criminal defense attorneys who moved into immigration law, and immigration attorneys who have moved into criminal law.

The symposium kicks off today with contributions by Yolanda Vázquez, a University of Cincinnati law professor who helped steer Padilla through the Court and has been tracking crImmigration law’s rapid evolution for years, first as a public defender, then as an immigration attorney, and now as an academic focused on crImmigration law; Maurice Hew, an immigration law professor at Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law, who runs a law school immigration clinic that has been litigating Padilla claims from day one; and Neil Fleischer, a Cincinnati attorney who successfully litigated a Padilla retroactivity case in federal court and has a keen understanding of what the Court’s decision in Chaidez will mean for noncitizens.

We’ll continue the symposium tomorrow with Christopher Lasch, a former criminal defense attorney who now co-teaches in the University of Denver’s criminal defense clinic, and has a deep understanding of the Court’s retroactivity framework; Craig Siegel, an attorney at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and counsel of record for a group of criminal defense and immigration defense organizations that submitted an amicus brief to the Court in support of Ms. Chaidez; and Carlos M. García, an immigration attorney at García & García Attorneys at Law, PLLC who has successfully used Padilla to prevent removal in Texas state courts and immigration courts (and is crImmigration.com’s patrocinador and my brother).

Next week oral arguments will be recapped by Lasch; Rebecca Sharpless, a tireless University of Miami law professor who helped prepare AILA’s amicus brief to the Court in support of Ms. Chaidez; Siegel; two attorneys from the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, an organization that serves as Chaidez’s co-counsel: Claudia Valenzuela, the Associate Director of Litigation at NIJC, and Sarah Rose Weinman, an Equal Justice Works Fellow there; and Michael Vastine, a St. Thomas University law professor who argued a Padilla retroactivity case before the Florida Supreme Court.

After a decision is issued, the symposium will wrap up with analyses by Lasch; Dawn Seibert, an attorney at the extraordinary Immigrant Defense Project in New York and a key figure in the amicus brief that IDP and other immigration advocacy groups submitted to the Court; Sharpless; Elizabeth Wydra, the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Chief Counsel and counsel of record for the CAC and a group of habeas scholars’ amicus brief; and Vastine.

With such an impressive group, the conversation shouldn’t be delayed any longer. Here it is:

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 11/5/2012 3:59 PM babatunde agoro wrote:
    The case of Padilla toChaidez immigration proceedings should be decided as retroactive
    Reply to this
  • 11/5/2012 4:02 PM babatunde agoro wrote:
    The case of Padilla retroactivity to Chaidez Immigration case and proceedings should be retroactive for her removability.
    Reply to this
  • 11/6/2012 11:59 AM Jorge Villalona wrote:
    Lol...It's weird what is hapening at the Supreme. Itcomes now taht the solution to DACADES of abuse to hundreds of thousands to legal residents by the INS and BIA,its not to make justice itself but to AVOID that tohse hundreds of thousands claim their right to justice. If the goberment took all those people who peaded guilty decades ago and deported them, braking appart their families...now they fear these same people come back to US because their constitutional rights were violated. One thing is true...the Goberment committed abuse and they (the Goberment)must recompense their commiteed error.
    Reply to this
  • 11/9/2012 6:46 AM Pradeep Parashar wrote:
    I agree with Mr. Jorge Villalona that Supreme court should justified Chaidez because the congress never intended to go below the constitutional standerd but administration has found a cheaper way to depersonalize and thingify aliens who have made mistake(s) contrary to the Immigration laws and powerless aliens are paying for their action but the question remains unclear as to those who are sitting comfortable with discretionary power have also violated the laws by not acting and not so assuming responsiblility to apply INA properly should also be prepared to pay for their responsibility.
    Reply to this
  • 12/9/2012 7:02 PM Jorge Luis Villalona Ramirez wrote:
    Thank you Mr. Pradeep Parashar. Agreed with you hundred percent.... If Government applied RETROACTIVITY to commette Constitutional Rights violations by deporting hundreds of thousands of legal residents (FOR DECADES)...why not to use RETROACTIVITY on matter of justice ???
    Reply to this
  • 2/3/2013 11:38 AM John C wrote:
    The issue here is that the Government has demonized Aliens to the point where they have "common" Americans in their corner. For example, I read a news article about a father that murdered his two sons and killed himself because of a divorce from his wife. He didn't harm her but he choked one son and shot the other then himself. So the first comment made by a poster was that he's a alien, deport him because of his name. An LPR myself waiting, this case is important to my family and I. What I've noticed the arguement is, the Gov is not concerned with undoing the error but more concerned with giving people the opportunity to go back in time and un-punish themselves to counter the move of the government going back in time and punishing people.

    It's one thing to make laws, but it is shameful to make them and BLANTLY state that they go back in time and they are ALSO taking away ANY effective way of defending your pass. And not only that, they are holding the judges hands behind their backs and securing the rope as tightly as possible.
    Reply to this
  • 3/25/2013 7:56 PM Jorge Luis Villalona Ramirez wrote:
    Republico este comentario, hecho por el juez de la US Supreme Court, CLARENCE THOMAS, para que vean cómo andamos con parte de esos jueces...... Ustedes, opinen....--Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion on Wednesday, said he continued to believe that “Padilla was wrongly decided” and so would have ruled against Ms. Chaidez whether she received bad legal advice before or after 2010.--
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.