Skip to main content may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

SCOTUS Protects American Consumers: States Can Prosecute Illegals for Identity Theft


Donald Trump, Jr. is right:

Why wasn’t this a 9-0 decision?

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that States can prosecute illegal aliens for stealing American IDs.

This ruling protects American consumers from identity fraud and theft.

There are even cases where American IDs aren’t just stolen… they’re sold on the black market.

Thanks to this new ruling, States can prosecute illegals engaged in stealing American IDs and commiting identity theft.

See Trump Jr.’s tweet below:

Constitutional justices stuck together once again...

... while left-win judges appeared to rule against protecting American citizens.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that States can prosecute individuals including illegal aliens for crimes that overlap with federal law.

Breitbart has more details on the ruling and what it means for illegal aliens caught stealing American IDs:

States have the authority to prosecute illegal aliens for using stolen identities of American citizens to work illegally in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

In a 5-4 decision — with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting — the Supreme Court ruled against three illegal aliens who were prosecuted for stealing the identities of American citizens to work illegally in the state of Kansas.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wrote in their majority opinion that states do have the authority to prosecute individuals for crimes that overlap with federal law.

The Justices wrote:

The mere fact that state laws like the Kansas provisions at issue overlap to some degree with federal criminal provisions does not even begin to make a case for conflict preemption. From the beginning of our country, criminal law enforcement has been primarily a responsibility of the States, and that remains true today. In recent times, the reach of federal criminal law has expanded, and there are now many instances in which a prosecution for a particular course of conduct could be brought by either federal or state prosecutors. Our federal system would be turned upside down if we were to hold that federal criminal law preempts state law whenever they overlap, and there is no basis for inferring that federal criminal statutes preempt state laws whenever they overlap. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases where federal and state laws overlap, allowing the States to prosecute is entirely consistent with federal interests.

The ruling overturns a Kansas Supreme Court decision where justices claimed that because state and federal law overlap on the issue of federal immigration law and identity theft, states do not have the authority to prosecute such cases.

Many are surprised that the ruling was 5-4.

Why should this even be a question?

See the confused and astounded responses on Twitter:

The ruling protects the Constitution as well as American citizens.

Furthermore, the decision actually helps promote state's rights.

The case brought before the Supreme Court came from Kansas, where an illegal alien was conviced under a state identity theft law.

CNN has more on the case from Kansas and the ruling by SCOTUS:

In the challenge at hand, Ramiro Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, used the Social Security number of someone else in order to get a job in a restaurant. After it was discovered that he had worked illegally, he was convicted under a state identity theft law.

But lawyers for Garcia challenged the conviction, arguing that he could not be convicted under state law because it is preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that establishes a framework for the regulation of the employment of undocumented immigrants. Under the law, an employee must submit documents establishing work authorization and an employer must attest to their employee's status.

"While Kansas may prosecute a wide range of offenses," a lawyer for Garcia told the justices, "what Kansas might not do is have its own individual immigration policy and immigration offenses. "

The Kansas Supreme Court threw out Garcia's conviction, and that of two others, holding that the state prosecution, based in part on information from a federal form, could not occur because the state law intruded on an area governed by federal law.

Kansas brought its appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that even though its prosecution was based on information available on federal forms, that same information had been submitted to the state. It also argued that it was not interfering with the federal government, but instead enforcing its own identity theft regulation.

Obamacare arguments put Supreme Court and health care in presidential election spotlight

Obamacare arguments put Supreme Court and health care in presidential election spotlight

"We aren't targeting folks because of their status," an attorney for Kansas argued in court. "We are enforcing our employment identity theft laws, and we don't want to give special exception to people because of their status."

The state said that the lower court opinion swept too broadly, infringing upon states' rights to enforce their laws and that the opinion "defies common sense" and could lead to "serious constitutional questions about the scope of congressional power to override the States' traditionally broad police power to enact criminal laws," including those to punish identity theft.

Significantly, the federal government sides with Kansas in the case, arguing in briefs that the federal law and state law at issue are not in conflict and that the lower court ignored the fact that the state prosecution could have gone forward without ever relying upon federal forms. In briefs, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that the lower court opinion "raises federalism concerns" and "produces untenable results" by blocking a state from enforcing identity threat prosecutions.

"Kansas' prosecutions," Francisco argued, "neither invade a federally occupied field nor conflict with Congress' purposes" in passing the federal law.

Many are raising the point: wouldn't an American citizen be prosecuted for identity theft?

Why would it be any different for an illegal alien?

One thing we can know for sure: Trump has done a great service to our country by nominating tried and true Constitutionalists to the highest court in the land!


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!