Justices OK state charges for immigrants who use fake IDs
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court made it easier Tuesday for states to prosecute immigrants who use fake Social Security numbers to get a job.
The issue for the court was whether states could pursue the immigrants in court or had to leave those choices to the federal government, which typically has authority over immigration.
The court ruled 5-4, with conservatives in the majority, that nothing in federal immigration law prevents states from going after immigrants who use phony documents and numbers.
The Kansas Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government has exclusive authority to determine whether an immigrant may work in the United States. It threw out state convictions for three immigrants, but the high court reversed the state ruling, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. "The mere fact that state laws like the Kansas provisions at issue overlap to some degree with federal criminal provisions does not even begin to make a case for" the state having to forgo prosecution, Alito wrote.
Kansas prosecuted the cases at issue by relying on information that is on a required federal work authorization form, the I-9. Kansas was backed by the Trump administration and 12 states in arguing that it can prosecute because the same information also appears on state work forms.
In 2012, the court ruled that portions of an Arizona law targeting immigrants without proper legal documents could not be enforced because federal law trumps state measures in the area of immigration. The three immigrants in the Kansas case contended that the high court's Arizona decision should have determined the outcome in their situation.
In a dissent for the four liberal members of the court, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that federal law "makes clear that only the federal government may prosecute people for misrepresenting their federal work-authorization status."
The case is Kansas v. Garcia, 17-834.
Justices likely to preserve SEC power to recoup fraud money
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court seemed prepared Tuesday to preserve an important tool that federal securities regulators used last year to recoup $3.2 billion in ill-gotten gains in fraud cases.
At most, the justices might impose some limits on how the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks repayment, or disgorgement, of profits from people who have been found to violate securities law.
But no one on the court appeared ready to say that the SEC lacks the power to ask a federal court to order repayment of money obtained through fraud. That was the argument made by a lawyer for a husband and wife who were ordered to cough up $27 million after a federal court found they engaged in a fraudulent scheme to lure Chinese investors to back a cancer center in southern California.
"Isn't it an equitable principle that no one should be allowed to profit from his own wrong?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Gregory Rapawy, the lawyer for Charles Liu and Xin "Lisa" Wang.
He responded that his clients should not be worse off than they were. Liu and Wang together reaped profits of $8.2 million from their scheme, but were ordered to repay $27 million based on what investors poured into the fraudulent project. the bulk of it was used for marketing and property development, Rapawy said.
Liu and Wang are relying on a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 2017 that already limited the SEC's ability to go after profits where alleged fraud has been going on for years before authorities file charges.
The 2017 case left open whether courts have the authority to order disgorgement of profits. The SEC meanwhile has continued to aggressively pursue defendants' profits in fraud cases. A year ago, for instance, the SEC persuaded a federal judge in Florida to order defendants in an alleged Ponzi scheme to repay $892 million in profits.
A decision in Liu v. SEC, 18-1501, is expected by late June.
High Court debates presidential power on 'Super Tuesday'
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court wrestled Tuesday with whether to make it easier for the president to fire the head of the agency that enforces federal consumer financial laws, a decision that could ultimately impact a vast range of agencies.
The high court was hearing arguments in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency Congress created in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
The agency was the brainchild of Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, and arguments took place as voters in 14 states were selecting who they want to be the Democratic party's nominee for president.
During arguments at the high court some justices were clearly bothered by a restriction that keeps the president from firing the CFPB's head whenever he wants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh called that restriction "troubling." But other justices seemed willing to let the restriction stand, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who described the restrictions as "modest."
Under the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, its director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. The president can only remove a director for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." That means that an incoming president usually can't immediately fire the agency's head appointed in the previous administration.
Defenders of the bureau's structure say it is good in that it insulates the agency's head from pressure by the president. But detractors say the restriction is unconstitutional and improperly limits the power of the president.
The impact of the justices' decision in the case could go beyond the CFPB because the heads of other so-called independent agencies have a similar restriction on being fired. Those agencies include the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission. Unlike the CFPB, however, those agencies are headed by multi-member boards.
The case was brought to the court by the Orange County, California-based consumer law firm Seila Law. As part of an investigation, the CFPB demanded information and documents from the firm, which is run by a solo practitioner. Seila Law responded by challenging the CFPB's structure. Two lower courts ruled against the law firm.
The Obama administration initially defended the structure of the agency. The Trump administration later reversed course and now says the structure is unconstitutional.
A decision in the case, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 19-7, is expected by the end of June.
Published: Wed, Mar 04, 2020
