Whether the ruling in Ghaidez V United States deprives certain people of the right to equal protection by allowing defense counsel to withhold a vital fact surrounding a plea bargain

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In Ghaidez V UnitedkStages.568 U.S.342(2023) this court decided that Padilla. V.Kentucky, dis not apply retroactive and announced a new rule. This decision brings up a question of a constitutional magnitude as to determine whether the ruling by this court deprive certain’ people of the right to equal sprotection, by allowing a defense counsel to withhold a vital fact surrounding a plea bargain to a certain group of people, which is a direct denial of a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, when the Sixth Amendment as well as existed at the time this court decided . Padilla, which now brings to question before thescourt. At the time of the plea proceeding did petitioner have protection of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, or was he not entitled to it because af his nationality which deprives his of the same right as other defendants during his plea bargain proceeding ? . , i.