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
According to Petitioner, jae Lee accepted a plea based on his counsel's assurance that he would not be deported, but the plea resulted in mandatory banishment from the United States.
According to Eric J. Feigin (Respondent), according to Eric J. Feigin (Respondent), the government argues that a Padilla claim requires constitutionally competent counsel who could have given the defendant a legitimate chance to avoid removal.
The Court indicated that a conviction on the charge could result in the defendant being deported.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, jae Lee pleaded guilty after being told by counsel that the plea would not lead to deportation, yet the plea carries a mandatory banishment.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the INS can still proceed to deport the person and whether a conviction is required given the earlier plea.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
The petitioner contends that his plea was entered based on counsel’s assurance that it would not trigger deportation, yet it resulted in mandatory banishment.
According to Petitioner (Mr. BURSCH), according to Petitioner (Mr. BURSCH), the petitioner argues that alternative plea negotiations could reduce deportation consequences, citing an example of a meth defendant who received a plea with lessened removal effects.
Respondent Position
According to Eric J. Feigin (Respondent), according to Eric J. Feigin (Respondent), the respondent maintains that a Padilla claim requires that the defendant had competent counsel who could have given him a legitimate chance to avoid a conviction and its removal consequences.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of Lee v. United States.
Eric J. Feigin, on behalf of the respondent, argued that a Padilla claim hinges on having constitutionally competent counsel to avoid removal.
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.
- 2debe7f6bb2e8f7bc4b1-r1-a5e78e30aa07fbf8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.