Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Kansas v. Garcia

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:07, 3 April 2023 by Samantha Post (contribs) (Text replacement - "===Dissenting===" to "===Dissenting opinion===")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Kansas v. Garcia
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: October 16, 2019
Decided: March 3, 2020
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer (in part)
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Kansas v. Garcia is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Kansas Supreme Court. It concerned the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

The court reversed and remanded the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding the Kansas statutes under which respondents Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were convicted "are not expressly preempted."[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were each convicted of identity theft in Johnson County, Kansas. They each appealed their convictions, arguing the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempted their prosecution. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the three convictions.
  • The issue: (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) Whether the IRCA impliedly preempts Kansas' prosecution of respondents.[2]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding the Kansas statutes under which Garcia, Morales, and Ochoa-Lara were convicted "are not expressly preempted."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 3, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling.
    • October 16, 2019: Oral argument
    • March 18, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • December 7, 2017: The State of Kansas filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 8, 2017: The Kansas Supreme Court reversed a state district court's conviction of Garcia, Morales, and Ochoa-Lara.

    Background

    Three cases, State v. Garcia, State v. Morales, and State v. Ochoa-Lara, arose from the same issue. The State of Kansas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on March 18, 2019.

    State v. Garcia

    In 2012, Officer Mike Gibson stopped Ramiro Garcia for speeding. Gibson ran a routine records check on Garcia and found he was already the subject of an investigation. As part of the investigation, Detective Justin Russell obtained Garcia's employment documents, such as his W-2 and I-9, and told the Social Security Office that Garcia had used someone else's social security number on these documents. Garcia was charged with one count of identity theft.[3][4]

    Before trial, Garcia moved to suppress the I-9 and W-4 forms, relying on a preemption provision in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The district judge decided not to suppress the W-4. A jury found Garcia guilty of identity theft.[3]

    Garcia appealed the conviction, arguing the IRCA preempted the prosecution. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the district court's conviction "because the State's identity theft prosecution of [Garcia] based on the Social Security number contained in the I–9 used to establish his employment eligibility was expressly preempted."[3]

    State v. Morales

    In 2012, Special Agent Joseph Espinosa of the Social Security Office of the Inspector General determined Donaldo Morales used someone else's social security number on his employment application at Jose Pepper's restaurant in Johnson County, Kansas. Morales was charged with identity theft.[5]

    Morales filed a motion to dismiss the I-9 and W-4 employment forms, arguing the IRCA preempted the state's prosecution. The state district court dismissed the I-9 but not the W-4 form. Morales was convicted of identity theft.[5]

    On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed Morales' conviction, holding the IRCA expressly preempted the prosecution.[5]

    State v. Ochoa-Lara

    In 2011, Overland Park Police officers were trying to contact Christian Ochoa-Lara. At the address for Ochoa-Lara, the officers learned the apartment was leased to Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara. The officers obtained a copy of the lease and found Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara used someone else's social security number to lease the apartment. The officers also found Ochoa-Lara used the same social security number on a W-4 employment form in Johnson County, Kansas. Ochoa-Lara was charged with identity theft.[6]

    Ochoa-Lara moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the IRCA preempted the prosecution. The state district court did not dismiss the lawsuit. Ochoa-Lara was convicted of identity theft. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed Ochoa-Lara's convictions.[6]

    Preemption and the IRCA

    See also:
    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
    Preemption conflicts between state and local governments

    Preemption occurs when law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level.

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire individuals unauthorized to work in the United States and established a system for verifying the legal status of employees. Click here for more information.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    (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) Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act impliedly preempts Kansas' prosecution of respondents.[2]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling. The court held the Kansas statutes under which Garcia, Morales, and Ochoa-Lara were convicted "are not expressly preempted."[1]

    Justice Samuel Alito penned the opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “ Kansas law makes it a crime to commit “identity theft” or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents—three aliens who are not authorized to work in this country—were convicted under these provisions for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms that they submitted when they obtained employment. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that a provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts the Kansas statutes at issue insofar as they provide a basis for these prosecutions. We reject this reading of the provision in question, as well as respondents’ alternative arguments based on implied preemption. We therefore reverse.[7] ”
    —Justice Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.[1]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ I agree that Kansas' prosecutions and convictions of respondents for identity theft and making false information are not pre-empted by §101(a)(1) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. I write separately to reiterate my view that we should explicitly abandon our "purposes and objectives" pre-emption jurisprudence.[7] ”
    —Justice Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined.[1]

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “ I agree with the majority that nothing in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts Kansas' criminal laws as they were applied in the prosecutions at issue here. But I do not agree with the majority's conclusion about implied preemption.[7] ”
    —Justice Breyer

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Kansas v. Garcia, decided March 3, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: 17-834 Kansas v. Garcia," accessed June 7, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Kansas Supreme Court, State v. Garcia, decided September 8, 2017
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Kansas v. Garcia," accessed June 7, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Supreme Court of Kansas, State v. Morales, decided September 8, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Kansas Supreme Court, State v. Ochoa-Lara, decided September 8, 2017
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kansas_v._Garcia&oldid=9117263"