InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner v. United States

The Court determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

568 U.S. 342 · No. 11-820 · 2012 term · Roberts Court

Decided Feb 20, 2013 · argued Nov 1, 2012

Criminal procedure · Retroactivity

Majority opinion: Elena Kagan

The voteMajorityDissent

7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Affirmed. Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied. Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.

Chaidez v. United States placed a limitation on the ruling in Padilla holding that it does not apply to any case before March 31, 2010, when the Padilla decision was issued. Some legal scholars speculate that this decision was made in part to prevent a "flood" of new cases from any time in the past. Non-citizens challenging a deportation case who do not have protection under Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky are still able to appeal a trial if they have been otherwise misadvised regarding the actual trial. Chaidez v. United States did not clarify whether or not individuals who filed a claim before March 31, 2010, but whose final conviction took place after March 31, 2010, were able to receive protection from Padilla v. Kentucky.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianGinsburgSotomayorKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaAlitoThomas

Majority(7)

Dissent(2)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Roselva Chaidez, PetitionerAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Sixth Amendment (right to counsel)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (national level); Federal common law
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Feb 20, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner lost.
  2. Nov 1, 2012ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

35 other argued cases since 1946 on retroactivity, newest first.

  1. Greer v. United States141 S. Ct. 2090Jun 14, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2090Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  2. Edwards v. Vannoy, Warden141 S. Ct. 1547May 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1547Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  3. Welch v. United States578 U.S. 120Apr 18, 2016 · 578 U.S. 120Criminal procedure7–18–1 band

  4. Montgomery v. Louisiana577 U.S. 190Jan 25, 2016 · 577 U.S. 190Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  5. Edward Dorsey, Sr., Petitioner v. United States567 U.S. 260Jun 21, 2012 · 567 U.S. 260Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  6. Stephen Danforth v. Minnesota552 U.S. 264Feb 20, 2008 · 552 U.S. 264Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  7. Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting549 U.S. 406Feb 28, 2007 · 549 U.S. 406Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  8. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. George E. Banks542 U.S. 406Jun 24, 2004 · 542 U.S. 406Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  9. Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren Wesley Summerlin542 U.S. 348Jun 24, 2004 · 542 U.S. 348Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  10. Republic of Austria et al. v. Altmann541 U.S. 677Jun 7, 2004 · 541 U.S. 677Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  11. Joseph Roger O'Dell, III v. J. D. Netherland, Warden, et al.521 U.S. 151Jun 19, 1997 · 521 U.S. 151Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  12. Kitrich Powell v. Nevada511 U.S. 79Mar 30, 1994 · 511 U.S. 79Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  13. Yates v. Aiken, Warden, et al.484 U.S. 211Jan 12, 1988 · 484 U.S. 211Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  14. Griffith v. Kentucky479 U.S. 314Jan 13, 1987 · 479 U.S. 314Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  15. Shea v. Louisiana470 U.S. 51Feb 20, 1985 · 470 U.S. 51Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  16. Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary v. Stumes465 U.S. 638Feb 29, 1984 · 465 U.S. 638Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  17. United States v. Johnson457 U.S. 537Jun 21, 1982 · 457 U.S. 537Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  18. Brown v. Louisiana447 U.S. 323Jun 16, 1980 · 447 U.S. 323Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  19. Hankerson v. North Carolina432 U.S. 233Jun 17, 1977 · 432 U.S. 233Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  20. Bowen v. United States422 U.S. 916Jun 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 916Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  21. United States v. Peltier422 U.S. 531Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 531Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  22. Gosa v. Mayden, Warden413 U.S. 665Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 665Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  23. Robinson v. Neil, Warden409 U.S. 505Jan 16, 1973 · 409 U.S. 505Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  24. Adams v. Illinois405 U.S. 278Mar 6, 1972 · 405 U.S. 278Criminal procedure5–27–2 band

  25. Hill v. California401 U.S. 797Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 797Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  26. United States v. United States Coin & Currency401 U.S. 715Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 715Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  27. Mackey v. United States401 U.S. 667Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 667Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  28. Williams v. United States401 U.S. 646Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 646Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  29. Debacker v. Brainard, Sheriff396 U.S. 28Nov 12, 1969 · 396 U.S. 28Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  30. Jenkins v. Delaware395 U.S. 213Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 213Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  31. Kaiser v. New York394 U.S. 280Mar 24, 1969 · 394 U.S. 280Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  32. Johnson et al. v. New Jersey384 U.S. 719Jun 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 719Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  33. Tehan, Sheriff v. United States ex rel. Shott382 U.S. 406Jan 19, 1966 · 382 U.S. 406Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
  34. Angelet v. Fay, Warden381 U.S. 654Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 654Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  35. Linkletter v. Walker, Warden381 U.S. 618Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 618Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.