In the case of Roselva Chaidez v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a landmark decision from 2010 could not be applied retroactively to benefit immigrants seeking to avoid deportation due to criminal convictions. The 2010 ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky held that defense attorneys must advise non-citizen clients about potential immigration consequences of guilty pleas. However, Chaidez had pleaded guilty to mail fraud before this ruling and was facing deportation as a result. She argued her attorney did not inform her of these possible implications at the time she entered her plea, which would have been required under Padilla's precedent if it were applicable then. The court disagreed with Chaidez’s argument stating that its decision in Padilla announced a new rule within the meaning of Teague v Lane (1989), hence cannot be applied retroactively on collateral review for cases like hers where conviction became final before announcement of such rule.

In the dissenting opinion for Roselva Chaidez v. United States, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with precedent and undermined the fundamental fairness of our judicial system. She contended that Padilla v. Kentucky should apply retroactively because it did not announce a new rule but merely applied an old one - ineffective assistance of counsel - to a specific set of facts involving immigration consequences of guilty pleas. The justice believed this case fell within Teague’s exception for watershed rules affecting basic due process rights, as it involved attorney competence in criminal cases which is central to fair trials and accurate verdicts. Furthermore, she expressed concern about noncitizen defendants who were misadvised or not advised at all about deportation risks before pleading guilty; they would be left without any recourse despite having constitutionally deficient legal representation.