[1] 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.

[3] 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.

Some legal scholars speculate that this decision was made in part to prevent a "flood" of new cases from any time in the past.

Chaidez disclosed the information about her guilty plea when she was applying to become a United States citizen in 2007.

[6] Chaidez challenged her original defraud case on the grounds that she was not warned about deportation at the same time Padilla v. Commonwealth was being decided in the courts.

[9] The crucial question in Chaidez v. United States was whether it was established outside of the courts that criminal defense attorneys had a known obligation to disclose information.

Seven of the supreme court justices were in favor of the decision in Chaidez v. United States, while two voted against it.

In his view, the Sixth Amendment "provides for adequate assistance of counsel in the charged offense and does not extend to advice regarding possible consequences, such as deportation".

[17] State law, in this instance Rule 30, allowed for Massachusetts to apply its own interpretation of previous Supreme Court precedents.

Rule 30 is a Criminal Procedure Rule in Massachusetts law that dictates who the appeal process works in the legal system, and allows for protections for those appealing court decisions including allowing individuals to start a new trial under certain circumstances.