Making the Punishment Fit the Crime
When illegal immigrants apply for jobs, they sometimes present made-up Social Security numbers. Too often prosecutors charge them with felony identity theft — which outrageously overstates the crime. The Supreme Court has called a halt to the practice, ruling 9 to 0 that federal identity-theft law does not apply. Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, gave his employer counterfeit papers that contained his real name and another person’s Social Security number. When caught, he was charged not only with improperly entering the United States and misusing immigration documents, but also with aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory two-year prison sentence.  Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, relied on a straightforward reading of the identity-theft statute, which requires that the defendant “knowingly” use another person’s identification. The government, Justice Breyer said, failed to meet that test in this case. The ruling is faithful to the statute’s text and to Congress’s intent in passing it. The law was aimed at criminals who steal the identity of a particular individual and do not just use random numbers. Mr. Flores-Figueroa, who used his own name on his counterfeit card, was not trying to steal anyone’s identity. He was trying to work in the United States without proper documentation — a crime, but a far less serious one. The federal aggravated-identity-theft law has become a favorite of overzealous prosecutors. Last year, after a raid at a slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, nearly 300 immigrants were charged with identity theft. Prosecutors used the threat of long sentences and unwarranted charges to coerce the workers into forgoing a trial and pleading guilty to lesser charges. A guiding principle of American law is that the punishment must fit the crime. The Supreme Court upheld this principle by insisting that undocumented immigrants who use false papers to get work be punished only for what they did.