Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
Nationwide Firm
Injury, Immigration and Business Attorneys
Aggressive Advocacy and Exceptional Civil Litigation Success

US Supreme Court limits immigration ruling in criminal plea deals

Immigration issues can arise in many areas of the law. Essentially, United States law is, at times, more like a web than solely a linear process. This blog previously reported a story on a federal appellate court ruling in a criminal case that cited the Immigration Law Sourcebook. Businesses in Florida are aware that employers have certain employment verification and I-9 compliance issues that arise from immigration law.

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that immigrants accused of a crime in the United States should be advised by their criminal defense lawyer of potential immigration law consequences that could flow from entering a guilty plea to criminal charges. The court at that time indicated that an immigrant not properly advised of potential deportation consequences in pleading guilty to a crime could raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal case.

The high court ruled Wednesday that the 2010 ruling will not be applied retroactively to criminal cases brought in state courts that became final prior to the 2010 court ruling.

Wednesday's ruling is seen as a defeat for thousands of immigrants who have been convicted in state courts of a crime that may have wished to seek to withdraw a guilty plea. Many of those immigrants may be facing deportation proceedings under U.S. immigration law as a result of the state court criminal conviction.

Essentially, the high court ruling means that immigrants whose criminal convictions entered through a plea without advice on the potential immigration consequences from their defense lawyer will not be able to argue to withdraw the plea if the case became final before the 2010 ruling.

What Wednesday's decision does not necessarily mean is that there is no other removal defense available as a general rule. Nor does Wednesday's ruling mean that going forward immigrants are not entitled to advice on immigration consequences in new plea negotiations. The majority opinion reportedly also states in a footnote that the ruling does not decide the retroactivity issue in federal court proceedings.

The justices handed down the decision in a 7-2 vote. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment says that he disagrees with the 2010 ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Source: Reuters, "Supreme Court won't extend 2010 immigration ruling," Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel, Feb. 20, 2013

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Aggressive Advocacy and Exceptional Civil Litigation Successes Call Our Firm at 305-444-0060 or Fill Out the Secure Form Below

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

AV - LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell - Peer Review Rated For Ethical Standards and Legal Ability The Best Lawyers in America Super Lawyers dbr - Verdicts & Settlements - Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. immigrants' list Listed in Best Lawyers - The World's Premier Guide

Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
2650 SW 27th Avenue
2nd Floor
Miami, FL 33133

Phone: 305-444-0060
Fax: 305-444-3503
Miami Law Office Map

Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.