Lawyers Debate Vague Law and Tie Breakers in Immigrant ID Theft Case
Supreme Court justices considered the meaning of “knowingly” in oral arguments yesterday on whether immigrants who use fake Social Security numbers can be charged with identity theft.
The federal statute requires a two-year prison term for anyone convicted of “knowingly” using the identification of another person. At issue is whether immigrants who make up Social Security numbers to obtain work can be convicted if they are unaware they are using the identity of a real person.
The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times covered the arguments. Both publications said justices appeared skeptical of government arguments that the law applied.
Several justices suggested the statute is ambiguous and the “rule of lenity” should apply, the Times story says. Justice Antonin Scalia said the rule means “the tie goes to the defendant.”
But lawyer Toby Heytens, who represents the government, said the court noted as recently as Tuesday in Hayes v. United States that the rule of lenity isn’t automatically triggered by a certain amount of ambiguity.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. responded in a dry manner, the Times notes. “Is it time,” Roberts said, “to revisit the court’s decision in Hayes?”
The case is Flores-Figueroa v. United States.
