Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea.

The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

After Padilla, there has been significant litigation in the lower courts about whether attorneys are required to advise their criminal clients about other consequences of convictions.

His defense attorney told him that he "did not have to worry" about the conviction affecting his immigration status, so he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain.

That court applied a harsh version of the collateral consequences rule, reasoning that whether Padilla’s attorney failed to advise him or affirmatively misadvised him before his plea made no difference.

The Supreme Court held that criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances.

[15] The Court reasoned that a contrary holding would invite attorneys to offer no advice about circumstances that might lead to their clients’ exile.

[15] Given this seriousness and the minimal duty imposed, offering clients no advice would be unconscionable and a violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee.

[14] The Court reasoned that immigration law is a separate legal field that is complex and may be unfamiliar to criminal defense attorneys.

[17] Alito agreed with the Court that affirmative misadvice gives rise to a valid claim under Strickland, reasoning that requiring attorneys to know the limits of their own expertise is not too high a standard.

Scalia agreed with Justice Alito’s reasoning about the complexity of immigration law, but concluded that the Sixth Amendment’s text and the Court’s decisions limit the amount of advice counsel is under a duty to provide.

[24] Scalia also saw no logical stopping point to a holding that requires counsel to give advice about collateral consequences of a conviction.

[27] The biggest direct impact of the Padilla decision is that criminal defense attorneys must advise their non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.

In cases for which the law is unclear, lawyers do not have to do significant legal research, but may simply say that a conviction may lead to the client's deportation.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito lists "civil commitment, civil forfeiture, the loss of the right to vote, disqualification from public benefits, ineligibility to possess firearms, dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces, and loss of business or professional licenses" as areas where the Court's holding in Padilla may be extended.