crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

Chaidez: Ignoring Precedent & Procedural Posture


By Christopher N. Lasch


The Court’s decision in Chaidez v. United States, elegantly described by Rebecca Sharpless here, was a woeful misstep. The Chaidez majority appears to have paid heed to Justice Scalia, whose dissent in Padilla was a jeremiad forecasting “years of elaboration upon these new issues in the lower courts.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1496 (2010). Eager to stem the tide of Padilla-based claims, the Chaidez Court applied the Teague v. Lane rule in circumstances that would have the original proponents of the doctrine howling, and that ignored and retreated from the Court’s most recent decision concerning the application of Teague.


In its 2008 decision in Danforth v. Minnesota, the Court explained Teague as a rule that addressed not the “retroactivity” of a constitutional rule, but the “redressability” of its violations. The Court cautioned against the “shortcomings” of the “retroactivity” vocabulary and its “temporal terms.” These lessons were lost in Chaidez.


Danforth explained that the Teague “redressability” rule determines the availability of relief in a precise procedural context, federal habeas corpus review of a state-court criminal judgment. The Danforth Court clearly cabined Teague, holding it inapplicable in state-court postconviction proceedings and leaving open the question whether it would apply in federal postconviction proceedings concerning federal criminal judgments. The Chaidez Court undid this careful work in one sentence, broadly and falsely claiming, without supporting authority or reference to Danforth, that Teague bars application of a “new rule” in a “habeas or similar proceeding.”


Danforth would counsel that for purposes of the Teague bar to relief Roselva Chaidez’s case, a federal coram nobis review of a federal-court criminal judgment is in no way a “similar proceeding” to a federal habeas review of a state-court judgment. But the Court brushed aside Roselva Chaidez’s argument that Teague should not apply in her case, holding in footnote 16 that her argument was not properly raised below and would not be considered. It is hard to see, though, how the Court can justify applying Teague in this new procedural setting unless the Court has reverted to viewing Teague as a retroactivity rule (that defines the temporal scope of a constitutional rule) and not a redressability rule (that determines whether violations of a constitutional rule will merit relief in a particular procedural setting).


The Danforth Court also acknowledged the doctrinal roots of Teague’s redressability rule in concerns with the comity owed state-court judgments by federal courts and the finality interest in not upsetting a criminal conviction. Application of Teague to a new context like Chaidez’s case demands a thoughtful consideration of the extent to which comity and finality concerns are at play. Here again the Chaidez Court failed, ignoring Chaidez’s argument (holding it unpreserved) that because her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was a “first-tier” review claim her case should be treated as though it were on the direct appeal track (where retroactivity is the rule, per Griffith v. Kentucky). The Court understood this point in its 2012 decision in Martinez v. Ryan. In Chaidez, the Court’s unwillingness to apply the same logic once again speaks to an abandonment of the redressability view of Teague.


Roselva Chaidez raised her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim at the proper procedural moment and using the correct procedural vehicle. A challenge to her claim as time-barred was properly rejected by the district court. The Padilla case was decided while her claim was pending, and the district court ruled on her claim after Padilla was decided. Given this procedural posture, the comity and finality concerns behind the Teague rule are nowhere in sight. The Chaidez Court was wrong to hold her claim Teague-barred.


Chaidez is susceptible to two alternative readings. On the one hand, it appears the Court may have lost its way, and forgotten the truths of Teague expounded just four years ago in Danforth. Even more dismal, it may be that the Court was simply so eager to shut off the flow of Padilla claims that it was willing to ignore the implications of the procedural posture of Roselva Chaidez’s case when it granted certiorari. That the Court explicitly left open the arguments she raised, that were central to a proper “redressability” analysis, provides some hope for others but stands as a sad memorial of the injustice done to one person.


Christopher N. Lasch is an Assistant Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he co-teaches the Criminal Defense Clinic.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on February 26, 2013 on 2:04 pm 15 Comments
Filed Under: Chaidez, commentaries, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel, Symposium, U.S. Supreme Court

Comments

  1. ブランド時計 says

    March 10, 2013 at 9:49 am

    ブランド時計

    ゆっくりと、万物の店の商売は立ち上がって、最高の時、単一の顧客を買っていきました彼はカウンターの上に2/3のアクセサリー中古ブランドショップが「お金」景relationresult「 信用はこの業界の最も重要な。

    Reply
  2. backpain treatment says

    March 28, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    backpain treatment

    Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an extremely long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t show up. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Regardless, just wanted to say fantastic blog!

    Reply
  3. payday loans says

    May 6, 2013 at 11:46 am

    payday loans

    This really is the worst post of all, I’ve study

    Reply
  4. FakE OaKLey says

    May 26, 2013 at 3:47 am

    FakE OaKLey

    Actually it known as SEO that when i search for this piece of writing I found this web page at the top of all sites in search engine.

    Reply
  5. Fake Oakleys says

    May 31, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Fake Oakleys

    If you are ready to watch comic videos on the internet then I suggest you to visit this web site, it consists of actually therefore comical not only movies but also other material.

    Reply
  6. Fake Oakley Pit Boss says

    July 2, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Fake Oakley Pit Boss

    Please upload other video clips related to cooking if you have, since I want to learn more and more regarding all recipes of cooking.

    Reply
  7. Cheap Oakley Juliet says

    July 2, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    Cheap Oakley Juliet

    Wow, what a quality it is! As mostly YouTube video tutorials have no fastidious quality, except this is genuinely a fastidious quality video.

    Reply
  8. Fake Oakley Pit Boss says

    July 9, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    Fake Oakley Pit Boss

    Hi there, I just wanted to mention, you’re wrong. Your post doesn’t make any sense.

    Reply
  9. Fake Oakley Holbrook says

    July 19, 2013 at 1:58 am

    Fake Oakley Holbrook

    In my residence when I get bored, after that I simply ON my laptop and open YouTube website to watch the YouTube movies.

    Reply
  10. Fake Oakleys says

    July 22, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Fake Oakleys

    crImmigration.com: Chaidez: Ignoring Precedent & Procedural Posture

    Reply
  11. Oakley Outlet says

    July 27, 2013 at 6:12 am

    Oakley Outlet

    crImmigration.com: Chaidez: Ignoring Precedent & Procedural Posture

    Reply
  12. Cheap Oakley Holbrook says

    July 31, 2013 at 8:39 am

    Cheap Oakley Holbrook

    crImmigration.com: Chaidez: Ignoring Precedent & Procedural Posture

    Reply
  13. cheap oakleys says

    August 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    cheap oakleys

    crImmigration.com: Chaidez: Ignoring Precedent & Procedural Posture

    Reply
  14. hack para criminal case says

    December 14, 2013 at 5:17 am

    hack para criminal case

    criminal case hack tool

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Crimmigration 101: Criminal Defense of Noncitizen Defendants | INSIGHTS INTO IMMIGRATION says:
    April 11, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    […] For more info about Padilla and Chaidez, check out this crimmigration blog. […]

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid
  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.