Unanimous court rules in “aggravated” identity theft case (May 4, 2009)

The Supreme Court held today that the government must show that a defendant had actual knowledge that the means of identification he or she was using belonged to another person in order to prove aggravated identity theft.

The case centers on Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican national who had worked at a steel plant in Illinois since 2000. He originally secured employment using a false name, Social Security number and Resident Alien card. In 2006, he sought to begin work under his real name and presented his employer with a new Social Security number and permanent Resident card with is name and registration number. These documents were forgeries, purchased by Flores-Figueroa.

The employer reported his request to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 2006, Flores-Figueroa pleaded guilty to using a false document and entering the country illegally, and pleaded not guilty to an extra charge of aggravated identity theft.

During trial, Flores-Figueroa said he was unaware that real people used the Social Security numbers. Nonetheless, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa convicted Flores-Figueroa of two counts of aggravated identity theft, and sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment for the misuse of immigration documents and entry without inspection offenses and a consecutive 24 months’ imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft offenses.
Flores-Figueroa appealed his conviction, reiterating his argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew that the identification he used belongs to another person.

In April 2008, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court decision, noting: “under the plain language of the statute, ‘knowingly’ modified only the verbs ‘transfers, possesses, or uses,’ and not the phrase ‘of another person.’”

The decision set up a split between the circuit courts, and on Oct. 20, 2008, the Supreme Court accepted review in the case.

On May 4, a unanimous high court reversed and remanded the lower court order.

"There are strong textual reasons for rejecting the Government’s position," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in the majority opinion "It makes little sense to read the provision’s language as heavily penalizing a person who 'transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority' a something, but does not know, at the very least, that the 'something' (perhaps inside a box) is a 'means of identification.'”

Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel A. Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment.

Question presented: Whether an individual who used a false means of identification but did not know it belonged to another person can be convicted of “aggravated identity theft” under 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1).