September 7, 2011
"Padilla v. Kentucky and the Evolving Right to Deportation Counsel: Watershed or Work-in-Progress?"
The title of this post is the title of this new article by Professor Daniel Kanstroom, which is now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Though widely heralded by immigration and human rights lawyers as a “landmark,” possible “watershed,” and even “Gideon decision” for immigrants, Padilla v. Kentucky is perhaps better understood as a Rorschach test, than as a clear constitutional precedent. It is surely a very interesting and important U.S. Supreme Court case in the (rapidly converging) fields of immigration and criminal law in which the Court struggles with the functional relationship between ostensibly “civil” deportation proceedings and criminal convictions. This is a gratifying development, for reasons not only of justice, fairness, proportionality, and basic human decency, but also (perhaps) of doctrinal consistency. The Court’s choice to rely upon the Sixth Amendment is understandable and in many respects salutary. However, this choice is also in tension with the civil/criminal distinction, and it raises complex questions about the process that might be due deportees both in criminal courts and immigration proceedings.
September 7, 2011 at 08:13 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Padilla v. Kentucky and the Evolving Right to Deportation Counsel: Watershed or Work-in-Progress?" :