Kansas v. Garcia
206 L. Ed. 2d 146, 140 S. Ct. 791 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not expressly or impliedly preempt state-law prosecutions for identity theft and fraud when unauthorized aliens use another person's information on state and federal tax withholding forms to obtain employment.
Facts:
- Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were aliens not authorized to work in the United States.
- To secure employment at various restaurants, each man used a Social Security number that belonged to another person.
- They provided this false Social Security number on their federal employment eligibility verification form (Form I-9).
- They also provided the same false Social Security number on their federal tax withholding form (Form W-4) and their Kansas state tax withholding form (Form K-4).
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas charged Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara in separate cases in Kansas state trial courts with violations of state identity theft and false information statutes.
- The State dismissed the charges that were based on information from the federal Form I-9.
- The trial courts allowed the prosecutions to proceed based on the false information provided on the W-4 and K-4 tax withholding forms.
- The respondents were convicted in their respective trial court proceedings.
- On appeal, three separate panels of the Kansas Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the convictions.
- The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas, the state's highest court, which consolidated the cases and reversed the convictions, holding that the prosecutions were expressly preempted by IRCA.
- The State of Kansas, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) preempt Kansas's authority to prosecute individuals for identity theft and making false information when they use another person's Social Security number on state and federal tax withholding forms to obtain employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. IRCA does not preempt the Kansas state-law prosecutions. The provision limiting the use of information 'contained in' an I-9 form does not bar prosecutions that rely on information from different documents, such as tax forms, even if the information is identical. The federal employment verification system and the tax-withholding system serve entirely different functions—one relates to work authorization, the other to tax collection. Therefore, the state prosecutions do not fall within a federally preempted field. Furthermore, there is no conflict preemption because it is possible to comply with both federal and state law, and the state prosecutions do not stand as an obstacle to federal objectives; in fact, federal law also criminalizes fraud on W-4 forms.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While the Court correctly holds that the Kansas prosecutions are not preempted, its analysis should not rely on 'purposes and objectives' preemption. This form of preemption is an atextual and illegitimate judicial inquiry into congressional intent that is contrary to the original meaning of the Supremacy Clause. Preemption should only be found where federal and state law are in logical contradiction.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. While IRCA does not expressly preempt the state laws, it does so by implication. Congress has occupied the narrow field of policing fraud committed to demonstrate federal work authorization. The respondents' fraud on their tax forms was done for the specific purpose of deceiving their employers about their work eligibility, which is the core concern of IRCA's comprehensive scheme. Allowing states to prosecute based on tax forms creates a 'colossal loophole' that undermines IRCA's express prohibition on states using the I-9 form for enforcement, as the fraudulent information on both sets of forms is almost always identical.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the preemptive scope of federal immigration law, affirming states' traditional police powers to prosecute generally applicable crimes like identity theft and fraud. It establishes that preemption under IRCA is not triggered merely because criminal conduct is related to seeking employment or involves information that also appears on a federal immigration form. The ruling provides states with significant leeway to prosecute unauthorized aliens for crimes committed in the process of obtaining work, as long as the prosecution is not based directly on the federal I-9 form or on the act of working without authorization itself.
