Notice: Despite our current global pandemic on COVID-19, our state government Executive Order has declared that Legal Services are Essential Businesses and that lawyers and professional staff are Essential Professionals.  Therefore, travel for these purposes is permitted under the Executive Order.  We are conducting web-based conferences and webinars as well for those who wish limit their social distancing.  We will continue to monitor the situation and make changes accordingly.  Thank you for your cooperation and our legal team wishes you good health, as it is just a matter of time that all will better than before.  So be prepared with the best legal advice, as you prepare for your future. 


Global Business Team

Moreno & Villarrubia LLP is here to help you navigate back to a place of financial freedom. Our qualified attorneys and support staff are dedicated to working for you. We are here to help you assess your financial situation and provide solutions to your financial challenges so you can achieve success!

Supreme Court agrees to hear immigration case

Identity theft is a serious and growing problem in Indiana and around the country, but the efforts some states have taken to tackle it have been criticized by civil rights advocates and the courts. In 2017, a Kansas court voided the convictions of three undocumented immigrants because prosecutors used information from federal forms. The court ruled that the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prevents states from pursuing criminal cases based on information found on certain federal immigration documents.

Kansas is one of a coalition of 11 states that are challenging the ruling, and the Supreme Court announced on March 18 that it would hear arguments in the case. Media reports suggest that President Trump, who has been critical of the ruling, urged the court to hear the case. The three undocumented individuals were convicted after prosecutors established that they had used false Social Security numbers on employment paperwork.

Attorneys representing the three men argued successfully that allowing this evidence would provide state prosecutors with a way to skirt federal immigration laws and target vulnerable communities. They said in court documents that Congress had worded the 1986 law carefully to prevent just this type of prosecutorial overreach. A Trump administration attorney sees things differently and says that legislators never intended the law to be used to create an exception for undocumented workers.

This case reveals how the language of federal immigration laws can give rise to contentious legal arguments decades after their passage. Attorneys with experience in this area may pay close attention to the outcome of this case and cases like it to ensure they they stay abreast of the latest legal developments and continue to provide their clients with accurate and up-to-date information.

Source: Reuters, “Supreme Court takes up Kansas identity theft case”, Lawrence Hurley, March 18, 2019