Kansas v. Garcia's guest appearances

Kansas v. Garcia

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

SCOTUScast

Audio Arguendo

Supreme Court of the United States

Carliyah

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Barton v. Barr

Mathena v. Malvo

Henry Schein

Allen v. Cooper

Artis v. District

Sveen v. Melin

Nasrallah v. Barr

McCoy v. Louisiana

Hernandez v. Mesa

Egbert v. Boule

Montana Dept

Babb v. Wilkie

Rotkiske v. Klemm

Bucklew v. Precythe

Ted Cruz

OwlTail

In this trial Mr. Garcia was charged with identity theft yet the court was using information they should not have.

KANSAS V. GARCIA

On Oct. 16, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kansas v. Garcia, a case involving a dispute over whether the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) precludes states from using any information contained in a federal Form I-9, (which includes common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number) to prosecute the person with a state crime.Respondents Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were convicted of identity theft (and/or making a false information) by the state of Kansas, for using social security numbers that were not theirs on federally required employment or housing-related paperwork.  Respondents argued that their convictions were invalid on the grounds that IRCA preempts the use of such information in a state prosecution.  The Kansas Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that IRCA expressly preempted state prosecutions that use information contained in a federal I-9 form. That decision conflicted with those of various other state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeals, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted Kansas’s certiorari petition to address whether IRCA impliedly preempts Kansas’ prosecution of respondents.To discuss the cases, we have Jonathan Urick senior counsel for litigation at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Oct. 16, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kansas v. Garcia, a case involving a dispute over whether the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) precludes states from using any information contained in a federal Form I-9, (which includes common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number) to prosecute the person with a state crime. Respondents Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were convicted of identity theft (and/or making a false information) by the state of Kansas, for using social security numbers that were not theirs on federally required employment or housing-related paperwork. Respondents argued that their convictions were invalid on the grounds that IRCA preempts the use of such information in a state prosecution. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that IRCA expressly preempted state prosecutions that use information contained in a federal I-9 form. That decision conflicted with those of various other state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeals, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted Kansas’s certiorari petition to address whether IRCA impliedly preempts Kansas’ prosecution of respondents. To discuss the cases, we have Jonathan Urick senior counsel for litigation at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Kansas v. Garcia - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Federalism: Does federal immigration law preempt state laws that criminalize using false immigration information on employment forms? - Argued: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 8:46:25 EDT

U.S. Supreme Court Kansas v. Garcia, Case No. 17-834

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:   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. 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.   Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-834_jifl.pdf  ---   Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ 

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:  <ul> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> </ul> Argument Transcript: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-834_jifl.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-834_jifl.pdf</a> --- Support this podcast: <a href="https://anchor.fm/scotus/support" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">https://anchor.fm/scotus/support</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★</a>

Case: 17-834 Kansas v. Garcia (2019-10-16)