State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588

Defendant Ramiro Garcia, an unauthorized immigrant, was hired as a restaurant line cook and completed electronic W-4 and K-4 forms containing a Social Security number that belonged to another person; the I-9 completed in hiring implicated the same information.
Police investigation following a traffic stop led to discovery that the Social Security number belonged to Felisha Munguia; Garcia was charged under Kansas identity-theft statute for using another's personal identifying information to receive a benefit (employment).
District court admitted W-4/K-4 into evidence over defense objection; I-9 was suppressed pretrial but the State did not rely on it at trial.
A jury convicted Garcia; he was sentenced to jail with probation; Garcia appealed, raising (inter alia) an as-applied preemption challenge under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the conviction, holding the State's prosecution was expressly preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) because IRCA bars use of the I-9 and "any information contained in" it for non‑enumerated enforcement purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed intent to defraud (element of identity theft)	State: Garcia used another's SSN to obtain employment, satisfying intent to receive benefit	Garcia: lacked fraudulent intent; he was a good employee and benefitted innocently	Not reached (court decided on preemption)
Whether IRCA preempts state prosecution based on SSN used in employment verification	State: Kansas identity‑theft law is neutral and applies regardless of IRCA; admission of W-4/K-4 was permissible	Garcia: as-applied preemption — IRCA expressly bars use of I-9 and any information in it for state enforcement; prosecution conflicts with federal scheme	Held: Reversed — prosecution expressly preempted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5)
Whether unanimity jury instruction was required	State: standard instruction sufficient	Garcia: district court erred by not giving unanimity instruction	Not reached (preemption dispositive)
Scope of §1324a(b)(5) — whether it bars use only of completed I-9 or also information appearing elsewhere (e.g., W-4)	State: statute should be read narrowly; information used apart from I-9 is admissible	Garcia: "any information contained in" the I-9 includes the SSN wherever it appears and therefore bars state use	Held: Court interprets §1324a(b)(5) to bar use of I-9 and any information contained in it for non‑enumerated enforcement, encompassing the State's use here

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal immigration law preemption principles; IRCA preemption of state employer sanctions analyzed)
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (analysis of express preemption clause; statutory text controls)
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (describes IRCA's employment‑verification scheme and criminal provisions for document fraud)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (express preemption clause interpretation and reliance on statutory text)
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (discussion of presumption against preemption when clause ambiguous)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (focus on plain wording of preemption clauses as evidence of congressional intent)