Kansas v. Garcia (17-834)

argument 17-834

Kansas v. Garcia

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue Kansas raises against the federal I‑9 system?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen eight thirty four, Kansas versus Garcia.

Kris Kobach 0:05

General Schmidt? Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. In a typical and recent year, more than fifteen million Americans became victims of identity theft. One third of those had their personal information misused in an employment or tax related fraud setting. Many of those victims were left to untangle reputations, eligibilities, and other finances. That is why Kansas, like every other state, makes identity theft a crime. Our laws apply in all settings to all people, citizen and alien alike. Respondents were convicted because they stole other people's personal information with intent to defraud. But in respondents' view, these state criminal laws that govern everybody else do not apply to them.

Kris Kobach 0:53

They argue that Congress has, in effect, granted them special immunity. because their intent was to obtain employment that Congress has forbidden. This Court never has so held and should not now. The conflict fatal to the Arizona Employment Statute is not present here because Kansas prohibits the theft of personal information by anybody, not work by unauthorized aliens. And this court has identified no preempted field relevant here. Section thirteen twenty four A B five means what it says and no more. The I nine verification system is available only for specified federal uses. B five's use limitation, which is quite different from typical preemption provisions, is one of several safeguards Congress adopted in nineteen eighty six to limit both governments and employers' use of the then novel I nine system.

Kris Kobach 1:46

But traditional state criminal law still reaches misconduct elsewhere in the employment context if proven without use of the I9 system. For example, states certainly still may prosecute a felon who uses a stolen identity to defeat a background check as a condition of employment at a child care center, even if he also used the same stolen identity on his form I nine. So too with the tax withholding forms used here.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:13

But isn't it telling, uh General Smith, that in all three cases that we have The prosecutor initially charged false social security number on the I nine. And it was only when Um The prosecutor appreciated that that couldn't be done. that the I nine charge was deleted.

Kris Kobach 2:40

I think these cases are here, Justice Ginsburg, because they do of course present the issue of the intersection between ERCA and generally applicable state law. These cases all straddled in in their timelines this Court's decision in Arizona. And I think that explains why the State originally attempted to use the I-9, then understood this Court's holding in Arizona, and withdrew from use of the I-9. I would point out, Your Honor, that all three cases arose, were discovered, the fraud was discovered in a context outside the employment setting. This is not what was happening in subsequent cases in Arizona. Mr. Garcia's fraud was discovered first in a records check at a traffic stop, Mr. Morales from a separate investigation related to workers' compensation, and Mr.

Kris Kobach 3:22

Ochoalar from a separate uh investigation of different criminal conduct in

John G. Roberts 3:27

Do you agree that the result would be different if the information was um harvested from the I nines. In other words, if State officials went to employers, said, Let me see your I nines, and then that is used to uh gather information that is used in the Kansas prosecutions.

Kris Kobach 3:47

I think it likely would, Your Honor. That is not what happened here and it's not supported on these records, and I recognize that is a more difficult case. We concede that the state may not use the I9 form. Whether that extends to a use investigation, I think is is perhaps a somewhat different question, not presented here. I recognize it's difficult and we don't claim that ground, but I don't want to concede it to it more generally.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 4:08

But the package that was submitted to the employer. It was all in one package, the I nine. The withholding form Federal and state. It's not that these were discreet. um episodes.