This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case Jose Padilla v. Kentucky concerns whether the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
The petitioner argues that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rule is a categorical restriction of the Sixth Amendment and provides no remedy for defendants misadvised about deportation.
The United States government maintains that the Sixth Amendment does not create a duty to advise about collateral consequences, and that the Kentucky rule is overly expansive.
According to United States, there is a split among federal circuits: ten circuits say there is no duty to advise about collateral consequences, while seven circuits allow a claim for affirmative misadvice.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jose Padilla)
The petitioner argues that the Kentucky Supreme Court announced a categorical rule that is overly restrictive of the Sixth Amendment and provides no remedy for a defendant misadvised about deportation.
The petitioner contends that the test for misadvice should be whether it is a material misrepresentation that would be material to a reasonable defendant deciding whether to plead guilty.
Respondent (Kentucky)
According to Respondent, the respondent cites Hill v. Lockhart, emphasizing that the voluntariness of a plea depends on counsel’s advice and whether that advice is within the range of competence in a criminal proceeding.
United States (Amicus)
The United States argues there is a fundamental difference between the petitioner’s claim of a duty to advise on all collateral consequences and the government’s view that such a duty is not required under the Sixth Amendment.
According to United States, the amicus notes that ten federal circuits currently hold there is no duty to advise about collateral consequences, while seven circuits allow a claim for affirmative misadvice about such consequences.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Alito asked why the issue would be limited to a decision to plead guilty rather than a trial verdict.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned how the rule would cover the many possible consequences.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia expressed concern about opening a “Pandora’s box” and whether the rule could be sensibly limited to deportation.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy remarked that it seemed odd that the government would be at risk when counsel strays from professional responsibility.
Justice Sotomayor asked how the defense’s argument would be addressed if a trial could win the case.
Justice Breyer asked whether counsel should inform a defendant about severe immigration consequences that could lead to death for the defendant and his family.
Mr. Long argued that prevailing professional norms and ethical obligations in Kentucky do not address this type of situation.
- [1] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 7
- [4] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdf, p. 39
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 0505295c063b5b245a4d-r1-2680d3fef7952463.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.