Author Topic: Kansas v. Garcia  (Read 370 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Kansas v. Garcia
« on: March 03, 2020, 05:58:12 PM »
This is a weird opinion to me, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-834_k53l.pdf.

I think the liberal minority is correct in how they analyze what happened.  Kansas prosecuted illegal aliens for tax fraud based on their immigration status, and maybe even correct that this should have been preempted.  Of course they ignored that the penalties for the tax crime are not remotely the same as for the immigration law violation (the  immigration law violation penalties are not criminal).

But the majority is also correct, the only way to implement that decision would be a mess of enormous proportions where putting stuff on an I9 basically acted as a self executing grant of immunity for using the same information in other contexts.  And if we adopted the minority position, illegal aliens would actually be immune from tax fraud crimes that everyone else risks.

Anyway, interesting result.  Totally split on ideology, but almost on a petty or irrelevant basis.

Long term effect, the majority definitely opened a loop hole that will allow state's to prosecute illegal aliens in connection with fraud committed to get a job.  Not sure that's a political result that anyone (other than a few state hardline AGs trying to make names for themselves) wanted.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Kansas v. Garcia
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2020, 08:13:50 PM »
Clearly not about tax fraud. What is better than a taxpayer who generally can't collect a refund.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Kansas v. Garcia
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2020, 02:34:34 PM »
...the majority definitely opened a loop hole that will allow state's to prosecute illegal aliens in connection with fraud committed to get a job.  Not sure that's a political result that anyone (other than a few state hardline AGs trying to make names for themselves) wanted.

My reading of the case law is aimed at the employer - not the employee. The stealing of another's ID is totally valid, and the "fruit of the tree" argument that an I9 is excluded from evidence is probably vacated by half a hundred cases of Doctrine of Laches. It's been done, so is set precedence.

Laws that conflict with convicting those who steal Identities should be vacated. Sometimes the Justices are just too smart for their own good.