Term: 2019
Docket: 17-834
Kansas v. Garcia
- Pro
17-834 KANSAS V. GARCIA DECISION BELOW: 401 P.3d 588 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 AND THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT IMPLIEDLY PREEMPTS KANSAS'S PROSECUTION OF RESPONDENTS. CERT. GRANTED 3/18/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act CIRCA (IRCA). IRCA made it illegal to employ unauthorized aliens, established an employment eligibility verification system, and created various civil and criminal penalties against employers who violate the law. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Regulations implementing IRCA created a "Form I-9" that employers are required to have all prospective employees complete-citizens and aliens alike. IRCA contains an "express preemption provision, which in most instances bars States from imposing penalties on employers of unauthorized aliens," Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 406 (2012), but IRCA "is silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against the employees themselves." Id. IRCA also provides that "[the Form I-9] and any information contained in or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than enforcement of [chapter 12 of Title 8] and sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5). Here, Respondents used other peoples' social security numbers to complete documents, including a Form I-9, a federal W-4 tax form, a state K-4 tax form, and an apartment lease. Kansas prosecuted Respondents for identity theft and making false writings without using the Form I-9, but the Kansas Supreme Court held that IRCA expressly barred these state prosecutions. This petition presents two questions, depending on the answer to the first question: 1. Whether IRCA expressly preempts the States from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications. 2. If IRCA bars the States from using all such information for any purpose, whether Congress has the constitutional power to so broadly preempt the States from exercising their traditional police powers to prosecute state law crimes. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 112,502
The U.S. Supreme Court case Kansas v. Garcia, 2019 revolved around the issue of whether federal immigration law preempts a state's authority to prosecute individuals for providing false information on employment verification forms. The defendants, three unauthorized immigrants in Kansas, were charged with identity theft after using other people’s Social Security numbers to gain employment. They argued that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempted their prosecution under state law because it expressly forbids states from using "any information" contained within an I-9 form as basis for a state-law identity theft prosecution. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kansas by a 5-4 vote stating that IRCA does not prevent states from prosecuting such cases because while it prohibits states from using the I-9 form itself or any information contained within it, this restriction doesn't extend to other documents like tax forms which may contain identical data used fraudulently by employees during hiring process.
In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Garcia, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that federal law preempts state law in matters relating to immigration. They contended that the majority's decision allows states to undermine federal authority over immigration policy. The dissenters believed that Congress intended for false-information crimes related to employment verification forms (I-9) to be exclusively under federal jurisdiction when it enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). By allowing Kansas to prosecute individuals based on information from these forms, they feared a potential patchwork of state laws interfering with a uniform national approach towards immigration issues. Additionally, they expressed concern about potential discrimination against foreign-born workers due to fear of prosecution under varying state laws.
