Client Alerts & Insights
Several States Look to Impose Stricter Non-Immigrant Hiring Procedures with Pending E-Verify Legislation
April 4, 2025
Authored By:
In response to the Trump administration’s focus on immigration enforcement, state legislatures have proposed bills requiring employers to participate in the United States Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify program. Currently twelve states have mandatory E-Verify participation bills pending[1].
The bills would require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm job candidates are authorized to work in the United States. E-Verify confirms a worker’s authorization based on federal records from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.
Some states, including Idaho, Indiana, Montana, and Texas, are proposing completely new E-Verify enrollment requirements which would mandate that employers use E-Verify after reviewing acceptable residency and identification documents when completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) with new hires.
Other states are attempting to expand existing requirements and increase noncompliance penalties. For example, Florida’s HB 1033 would revoke and employer’s business licenses and impose a fine of up to $10,000 for employing an unauthorized worker.
Currently nine states require all employers, with limited exemptions for small businesses, to participate in E-Verify (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah).
As discussed in our previous alert, the potential expansion of E-Verify requirements is one of many measures that could reshape the U.S. immigration landscape, impacting businesses, workers, and families.
To manage or reduce the impact of the potential requirements, businesses can:
- Conduct internal I-9 audits, rectify errors and ensure compliance with U.S. immigration laws.
- Move mission-critical projects and associated foreign talent to offices outside the U.S. to ensure business continuity.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Immigration Practice Group.
Alan Rothenbuecher at arothenbuecher@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4436.
Margarita Krncevic at mkrncevic@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6285.
Alyson Waite at awaite@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4179.
[1] ID, IN, MA, MI, MT, NE, NJ, OK, OR, PA, RI, TX
Latest News
Owner-Operators and Federal Leasing Regulation Compliance: Legal Q&A
Key Takeaways: The longstanding practice of many motor carriers operating through independent contractor owner-operators remains today despite the many legal …
Group Defamation Claims and the Evolving Limits of the Group Libel Doctrine
Courts are increasingly willing to look beyond the traditional small-group requirement when assessing whether an allegedly defamatory statement is “of and concerning” a particular plaintiff. Recent decisions suggest that audience perception and real-world impact may matter as much as group size.
HRSA’s Revised 340B Rebate Pilot Drama
The Health Resources and Services Administration’s revised 340B Rebate Model Pilot would replace up-front discounts with post-purchase rebates for 21 drugs beginning January 1, 2027, requiring covered entities to pay full wholesale acquisition cost and submit claims data to recover the 340B discount.
Restrictions on Foreign Interests in the Transportation and Logistics Sector: A Look Ahead
The transportation and logistics industry is not immune from rising concerns about foreign investment. Since the start of this Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation has steadily turned focus to perceived threats against both public safety and purely domestic operators by non-U.S. interests in the sector.