"Equal Vision" Denied: Rethinking Padilla Through the Lens of Dignity by Glykeria Teji

"Equal Vision" Denied: Rethinking Padilla Through the Lens of Dignity by Glykeria Teji, 13 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 339 (2026)

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky reshaped the constitutional landscape by holding that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel includes a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The Supreme Court’s decision heightened awareness of the constitutional duty incumbent upon criminal defense attorneys to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, recognizing deportation as a “particularly severe penalty” that is “intimately related to the criminal process.”This mandate has had far-reaching implications, especially for defense counsel representing vulnerable populations at risk of detention and removal. The burden on public defenders is considerable, particularly in jurisdictions where resources are scarce and caseloads are overwhelming. The complexity of immigration law compounds this challenge, making it difficult for even well-meaning attorneys to provide constitutionally sufficient advisals. In this article, I argue that Padilla can serve as a foundational precedent for expanding dignity-based arguments in constitutional litigation, particularly in the immigration detention context, where prolonged confinement and inadequate medical care infringe upon detainees’ rights to liberty and humane treatment. I begin with an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla, assuming most readers are already familiar with its holding. To ground the analysis in real-world impact, I include examples of how erroneous legal advice can lead to devastating, and often irreversible, consequences for noncitizens. This is followed by an overview of the mandatory detention framework in the U.S. as well as its impact on noncitizens’ mental health. In the last part of the article, my analysis centers on how dignity-based legal principles can reframe the constitutional rights of mentally ill noncitizens, with particular attention to the requirement for humane treatment and procedural fairness in both criminal and immigration proceedings. I argue that enforceable dignity rights are essential to confronting the systemic injustices faced by mentally ill detainees and are critically relevant in addressing the failures of the immigration detention system. By examining the intersection of Padilla’s due process expansion and the dignity rights of vulnerable noncitizens, I hope to contribute a novel framework to advance humane, constitutionally grounded treatment for this population.