A Divided Supreme Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can be Prosecuted for Identity Theft on Employment Eligibility

It should not be a 5-4 split and majority decision, but that just goes to reflect how radical and structurally political the Supreme Court has become.  In an important ruling today the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that illegal aliens can be prosecuted by the states for stealing the identity of U.S. persons on employment eligibility paperwork.  [Direct pdf link]

Stunningly four justices (BREYER, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN) dissented from the majority decision; and instead gave their minority opinion that federally mandated I-9 employment eligibility certifications should not be permitted for use as evidence in cases surrounding identity theft.

According to the dissenting opinion, if your identity or social security number was stolen by an illegal alien; and used to falsify employment eligibility documents; that illegal action is not itself criminal conduct because the documents are not permissible as evidence to show the alien falsified information. An absolutely bizarre position in a nation of laws.

The primary issue surrounds federal laws that state employment affidavits, like an I-9 eligibility declaration, cannot be used to prosecute illegal aliens, unlawfully residing in the U.S.  However, it is simultaneously unlawful under federal law to provide false information on those employment eligibility documents.

Thankfully the five majority justices (ALITO, ROBERTS, THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH) saw the abject stupidity of the lower court ruling (Supreme Court of Kansas) reversing and remanding the prior decision.  Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and pointed out the ridiculous outcomes if such considerations were extended.

[…] Suppose that an employee truthfully states on his I–9 that his name is Jim Smith. Under the interpretation of 8 U. S. C. §1324a(b)(5) that the Kansas Supreme Court seemingly adopted, no one could use Jim’s name for any purpose. If he robbed a bank, prosecutors could not use his name in an indictment. His employer could not cut a paycheck using that name. His sister could not use his name to mail him a birthday card.  [pg 13]

Here’s the 37-page ruling.  I would STRONGLY urge everyone to review it.

Supreme Court -Vs- Garcia -... by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd