State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 66
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Martha Martinez was brought to Iowa at age 11, educated and resident there continuously, mother of U.S.-citizen children, and later obtained DACA and federal work authorization.
- As a teen she used another person’s birth certificate and social security number to obtain Iowa IDs and later employment; employer retained copies and 1-9 paperwork.
- After receiving DACA, Martinez applied for a license in her own name; IDOT’s facial-recognition check revealed prior IDs in the name of "Diana Castaneda," prompting an investigation.
- Martinez admitted using borrowed/false documents years earlier to obtain a driver’s license and to work; state charged her with identity theft (Iowa Code §715A.8) and forgery (Iowa Code §715A.2(1)).
- The district court denied Martinez’s preemption-based motion to dismiss; the Iowa Supreme Court granted interlocutory review and reversed, dismissing the case on federal preemption grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa forgery statute (§715A.2(2)(a)(4)) that mirrors federal immigration-document fraud is preempted | Martinez: the state statute conflicts with and duplicates federal immigration enforcement and is preempted | State: forgery is a traditional state crime independent of federal immigration law | Held: Facial preemption — the mirror-image forgery provision is preempted by federal law (field preemption) |
| Whether Iowa identity-theft statute (§715A.8) is facially preempted | Martinez: federal law occupies the field of employment-related document fraud; state prosecution interferes with federal scheme | State: identity-theft statute is generally applicable, neutral, and targets non-immigration harms | Held: Not facially preempted (statute has lawful, non-immigration applications) |
| Whether Iowa may prosecute Martinez under identity-theft law as applied (use of false documents to obtain employment) | Martinez: as-applied prosecution intrudes on the federally occupied and discretely regulated field of unauthorized-employment/document-fraud and usurps federal enforcement discretion | State: prosecution protects citizens and employers from fraud and does not seek to enforce immigration law | Held: As-applied preemption — prosecution is preempted (both field and conflict) because it interferes with IRCA’s calibrated federal enforcement scheme and federal prosecutorial discretion |
| Whether state use of 1-9 / employer-retained documents is barred by federal law (8 U.S.C. §1324a(b)(5)) | Martinez: Congress limited use of 1-9 and appended documents to specified federal prosecutions, signaling federal preemption of state prosecutions relying on those materials | State: §1324a(b)(5) is an evidentiary limitation, not a broad field preemption of state crimes | Held: Court’s decision rests on broader preemption principles (field/conflict) rather than solely on §1324a(b)(5); use of federal enforcement discretion and federal regulatory scheme is central to preemption analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (federal occupancy of immigration-related field; obstacle to federal objectives)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (states may regulate employment in some immigration-adjacent contexts; limited precedent)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (IRCA centralizes federal regulation of employment of unauthorized aliens)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (IRCA savings clause and interplay of state licensing laws with federal scheme)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (state immigration measures preempted where they intrude on federal scheme or enforcement discretion)
- Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 821 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (addressing facial vs. as-applied preemption of state identity-theft laws tied to employment)
- United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir.) (federal occupation of immigration-document fraud field; state prosecutions can intrude on federal discretion)
- Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.) (state immigration enforcement that layers penalties atop federal scheme can be preempted)