Supreme Court Gives States Greater Rights to Prosecute Undocumented Immigrants. Justices split over the case, which concerns identity theft by undocumented immigrants who provide false social security numbers on job applications

Wall Street Journal ^ | March 3, 2020 | Brent Kendall

[karpov]

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday boosted the ability of states to prosecute undocumented immigrants for identity theft when they provide false social security numbers or other information on job applications.

The court, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, reinstated convictions obtained by Kansas prosecutors against three restaurant workers for using other people’s social security numbers on forms given to their employers.

The central question in the case, Kansas v. Garcia, was whether such state prosecutions were barred by a provision of federal immigration law that says any information submitted with federal work-authorization forms can’t be used for state law-enforcement purposes.

Justice Alito, writing for a conservative majority, said the answer was no. The mere fact that Kansas law on identity theft overlapped with federal law “does not even begin to make a case” that the state’s prosecutorial efforts should be pre-empted, he wrote.

“In the present cases, there is certainly no suggestion that the Kansas prosecutions frustrated any federal interests,” Justice Alito said. Joining him in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The Trump administration had sided with Kansas in the case, arguing that Congress never meant to carve out an immigration-related exception that would prevent states from enforcing their own identity-theft laws.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal wing, said U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work.

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country,” Justice Breyer wrote.

[Buckeye McFrog]

This will begin a game of musical chairs with illegals moving from states that will enforce such laws to those which don’t.

[KC_Conspirator]

So 4 justices said its ok for illegal aliens to commit ID theft. Wtf?

[SkyDancer]

We don’t want to hurt the illegal’s feelings about being here illegally.

[circlecity]

"This will begin a game of musical chairs with illegals moving from states that will enforce such laws to those which don’t."

Then I sure hope my state enforces those laws aggressively.

[Brian Griffin]

A state could lose income tax revenue if a person has two jobs and use a fraudulent tax ID number.

[Kickass Conservative]

Those four so called dissenting Justices are Traitors to the Republic, pure and simple.

[Harpotoo]

4 4 would be a split but don’t tell that to the anti-reality dims:-)

[gibsonguy]

Justice Stephen Breyer is being cute here using the Federal Law agreement when he know it means it won’t be enforced at a local level like this because there is no Federal presence there. Typical rat trickery.

[Brian Griffin]

“provide false social security numbers on job applications”

“provision of federal immigration law that says any information submitted with federal work-authorization forms can’t be used for state law-enforcement purposes.”

An employer’s job application isn’t a federal work-authorization form.

[txrefugee]

Texas should enforce this to the max. Let the Latinos go to CA and NM and steal SS numbers. Texas is sick of this invasion.

[montag813]

This case proves that — given the current court in 2011 — Arizona’s SB1070 would have been completely upheld (with Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy, who killed 3/4 of it)

[lastchance]

Not exactly. They wrote that under current immigration law it was solely the federal government’s authority to prosecute identity theft by undocumented immigrants. The majority argued that the intent of the law was not to keep state’s from enforcing their own laws on identity theft, but to prevent states from “frustrating” federal immigration law. Not sure what counts as frustrating. But a state law against identity theft does not fit that bill.

[Phlyer]

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to . . .

Rather inconvenient for him that the 10th Amendment says things work exactly backward from that. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and it does not grant that power to the federal government, regardless of what a law passed by Congress might say.

[lastchance]

I am pretty darn sure in the case of hiring documented workers (yes I know the information was false but the form assumes they are legal)it would require federal forms.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Another day, another example of how the left loves illegals.

Another thought. Why should we pay to keep illegals in prison in the first place. We secure our borders and deport them. For murder, we execute them.

We do not “prosecute” them and then release them back into our country. To do it again. And again. And again.

I’d delight in seeing Justice Breyer have his identity stolen by an illegal and his personal and financial life thoroughly crapped up by it.

[faithhopecharity]

Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama ObamaObama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama

[I want the USA back]

democrats won’t prosecute them. They need the votes.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

Fraud is fraud.

[traderrob6]

“...it would require federal forms.”

True, but the misrepresentations (lies)would be both on a Federal AND State forms thus making both the illegalities actionable depending on whichever chose to act.