Case Citator › Roe v. Flores-Ortega

Roe v. Flores-Ortega

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
528 U.S. 470
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
131 of 131
Citing cases (total)
2,700
Treatment dates
2001–2019
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Roe v. Flores-Ortega has been limited in four decisions. All 131 flagged citations have been read, and the 4 confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

The courts declined to extend its presumption-of-prejudice rule to immigration proceedings or to a lawyer's failure to seek withdrawal of a guilty plea. The other citing opinions applied Flores-Ortega, reported another court's treatment, or did not act on it.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,700 later cases cite Roe v. Flores-Ortega; 131 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Roe v. Flores-Ortega?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The First Circuit declined to extend Roe's criminal prejudice-per-se rule to civil deportation proceedings.

    Hernandez v. Reno · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · filed

    Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 1038-39 (2000). But we are unwilling, unless directed to do so, to incorporate into civil deportation proceedings the whole apparatus of Sixth Amendment precedent.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The BIA declined to extend Flores-Ortega's per se prejudice rule for counsel's failure to file an appeal to immigration proceedings.

    In re Bassel Nabih Assaad · Board of Immigration Appeals · filed

    We note that in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 484 (2000), the Supreme Court held that “counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance depriv[ing] a defendant of an appeal that he otherwise would have taken,” establishes a “successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim entitling him to an appeal” without any additional showing of prejudice. However, for the same reasons that we do not find the Supreme Court’s decisions in the criminal context in Coleman v. Thompson and Wainwright v. Torna controlling in the immigration context, we do not find that the Court’s pronouncement in Roe v. Flores-Ortega requires us to find per se prejudice from counsel’s failure to file an appeal in immigration proceedings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Idaho Court of Appeals declined to extend Flores-Ortega's presumption of prejudice to counsel's failure to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

    Zepeda v. State · Idaho Court of Appeals · filed

    We are not persuaded that the presumption of prejudice authorized in Cronic and applied in Flores-Ortega applies to a defense attorney’s failure to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The First Circuit held that Flores-Ortega's prejudice logic did not extend to this immigration context and therefore declined to presume prejudice.

    O'Riordan v. Barr · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · filed

    Thus, Hernandez does not justify, much less require, the conclusion that the logic of Flores-Ortega must be extended to the immigration context, such that we must presume that the waiver's enforcement in O'Riordan's case prejudiced him by depriving him of a right to more than the process that he received.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Roe v. Flores-Ortega and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace