In the case of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 2008, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Figueroa by a unanimous decision. The issue at hand was whether or not an individual could be convicted for aggravated identity theft under federal law without proof that they knew the identification belonged to another person. Figueroa, an undocumented worker from Mexico had used counterfeit Social Security and Alien Registration Cards bearing his name but someone else's numbers to gain employment. He was charged with two immigration offenses and aggravated identity theft which required knowledge that "the means of identification" he unlawfully transferred, possessed or used did indeed belong to "another person". The court concluded that this phrase in the statute does require government to show that defendant knew he was using another person’s identifying information rather than random digits.

In the dissenting opinion for IGNACIO CARLOS FLORES-FIGUEROA v. UNITED STATES, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of "knowingly" in 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) was incorrect and inconsistent with Congress' intent when drafting the statute. He contended that it is not necessary for a defendant to know that they are using another person’s identification unlawfully; rather, it is enough if they knowingly use an identification without lawful authority, regardless of whether or not they knew it belonged to someone else. The justice believed this interpretation would better serve Congress’ goal of deterring identity theft by making prosecution easier and more straightforward.