WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether people picked up on immigration violations also can face charges of identity theft if they use Social Security and other identification numbers that belong to others.

The court agreed to take a case involving Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican national who worked at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill.

Federal appeals courts have split over whether the defendant must know that the phony ID numbers belong to a real person and the court said it will resolve the question.

Federal prosecutors have increasingly been bringing the more serious identity-theft charges against undocumented immigrants, including many who were arrested in raids on meatpacking plants.

Defense lawyers have argued that their clients should not be charged with stealing someone else's identity because they only were seeking documentation that would allow them to work. They didn't know if the numbers were fictitious or belonged to someone else, their lawyers say.

The Bush administration, however, has said that it doesn't matter under federal law.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, agreed with the administration and upheld the conviction of Flores-Figueroa.

Flores-Figueroa had worked at the East Moline steel plant since 2000. Originally, he worked there under an assumed name, and false Social Security and alien-registration numbers. In 2006, he told his employer he wanted to be known by his real name and submitted new identification documents.

This time, though, the Social Security number belonged to someone else, and his green-card number was that of yet another person. Suspicious, the employer contacted immigration authorities, who arrested Flores-Figueroa.

The five-count indictment against him included two counts of aggravated identity theft.

Federal appeals courts based in Atlanta and Richmond also have ruled in the government's favor in similar cases, while the appeals court in Washington, D.C., has sided with defendants.

The case, which will be argued next year, is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108.