October Term 2012 · Docket 11-820
Does Padilla v. Kentucky apply retroactively to pending cases?
the sides that brought the case seek retroactive application of the Padilla rule. The government argues the rule is new and cannot apply to pending cases.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Fisher argued that procedural default applies to federal post-conviction review.
Mr. Dreeben asserted that Padilla announced a new rule under Teague.
justice_questions
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether a new legal standard applies to cases already in the courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-41
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the new rule to apply to their pending case.
The government wants the new rule to apply only to future cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the rule is not new and should apply now.
The government argues the rule is new and cannot apply retroactively.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts questioned why ten courts of appeals disagreed with the side that brought the case.
Justice Ginsburg asked if Strickland applies to collateral consequences like professional licenses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-1
Why it matters
This case determines whether new legal standards apply to pending criminal cases. It affects the finality of convictions and the scope of attorney duties.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.