After seeing a bunch of posts concerned about the 4 dissenting justices. I too was interested in the "How the FUCK could you be against this?" position, so I have researched it. I'm not a lawyer, but here is what I gather.
The landmark case happened in Kansas where 3 Illegals used a SS# that wasn't theirs in order to get paychecks. Defense attorneys were trying to say "you can't use information on a federal form for state laws. This information is on the I-9." Pretty clever lawyering, it's a defense attorney's job to try to wiggle out for their client.
As far as I can tell, Kansas courts were like "Yeah, nah these guys are guilty" but the interesting question about whose form the I-9 is, and info on it, went to the KANSAS Supreme Court who said, "The I-9 is a federal form, that's not us" - basically those justices said we don't prosecute federal crimes, we are Kansas. Not totally unreasonable, states do state law and feds do federal law. Kansas supreme court also said "besides, we can always charge these guys on the W-4 and K-4 info, which is our documentation and has the same data, and we will. But in this case, your client can be let go because they DID use the I-9 which messes up evidence and the trial is done."
In summary, the dissent is saying ONLY the Feds have rights to police fraud for federal work authorization which isn't unreasonable. The majority are saying, look, if someone fills out the I-9 fraudulently, it is a federal crime but the state can use that information.
After seeing a bunch of posts concerned about the 4 dissenting justices. I too was interested in the "How the FUCK could you be against this?" position, so I have researched it. I'm not a lawyer, but here is what I gather.
The landmark case happened in Kansas where 3 Illegals used a SS# that wasn't theirs in order to get paychecks. Defense attorneys were trying to say "you can't use information on a federal form for state laws. This information is on the I-9." Pretty clever lawyering, it's a defense attorney's job to try to wiggle out for their client.
As far as I can tell, Kansas courts were like "Yeah, nah these guys are guilty" but the interesting question about whose form the I-9 is, and info on it, went to the KANSAS Supreme Court who said, "The I-9 is a federal form, that's not us" - basically those justices said we don't prosecute federal crimes, we are Kansas. Not totally unreasonable, states do state law and feds do federal law. Kansas supreme court also said "besides, we can always charge these guys on the W-4 and K-4 info, which is our documentation and has the same data, and we will. But in this case, your client can be let go because they DID use the I-9 which messes up evidence and the trial is done."
In summary, the dissent is saying ONLY the Feds have rights to police fraud for federal work authorization which isn't unreasonable. The majority are saying, look, if someone fills out the I-9 fraudulently, it is a federal crime but the state can use that information.