## Facts

- Three unauthorized noncitizens (Garcia, Morales, and Ochoa‑Lara) lived and worked in Kansas and used Social Security numbers assigned to other individuals.
- To obtain employment and set tax withholding, each completed federal W‑4 and Kansas K‑4 forms using the borrowed Social Security number; at least some employment files also contained Form I‑9 reflecting the same identifying number.
- Kansas prosecuted them under generally applicable state identity‑theft and related fraud statutes, relying on the W‑4/K‑4 forms rather than introducing the I‑9 forms as evidence.
- Each defendant was convicted of at least one identity‑theft or fraud offense.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, concluding the prosecutions were preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) because the challenged information also appeared on (or was required for) the federal I‑9 employment-verification process.
- Kansas petitioned for review.

## Issues

1. Whether IRCA’s express preemption clause, which bars certain state sanctions relating to employment of unauthorized aliens, preempts Kansas’s identity‑theft and fraud prosecutions of employees.
2. Whether IRCA impliedly preempts state prosecutions for using another person’s Social Security number on non‑I‑9 documents (W‑4/K‑4), when the same information also appears on an I‑9.
3. Whether IRCA’s restriction that the I‑9 and documents appended to it may be used only for specified federal enforcement bars a state from using the same identifying information when it appears on separate, independently required forms.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court and remanded.
- IRCA did not expressly preempt Kansas’s prosecutions because the statute’s express preemption clause targets state sanctions “upon those who employ” unauthorized aliens, and Kansas’s laws regulated employee identity theft and fraud, not employer sanctions.
- IRCA’s I‑9 use restriction was read as document-specific: it limits use of the I‑9 form and its attachments for non-specified purposes, but does not bar using identical information that appears on other forms with independent legal significance, such as W‑4 and K‑4.
- IRCA did not impliedly preempt the prosecutions: regulating identity theft and fraud is a traditional state police power, and applying those laws to false identity use in employment did not conflict with IRCA’s objectives or create a federally occupied field.

## Legal Principles

- IRCA’s express preemption clause in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) preempts certain state civil or criminal sanctions directed at employers (subject to a licensing exception), not generally applicable state criminal laws directed at employees’ identity-related misconduct.
- The limitation in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) on using the Form I‑9 and documents appended to it is confined to those documents; it does not create a broad bar against state use of the same information when obtained from distinct, independently required records.
- In areas of traditional state regulation (e.g., identity theft and fraud), courts apply a presumption against implied preemption absent clear congressional intent or an actual conflict that prevents compliance with both regimes or defeats federal law’s operation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that IRCA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Kansas from prosecuting unauthorized workers under state identity‑theft and fraud statutes based on Social Security numbers used on W‑4 and K‑4 withholding forms, even if the same identifying information also appears on a federal I‑9.


Kansas v. Garcia, 140 S. Ct. 791 (2020)