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
D.C. Circuit Rejects DOE’s Use of Emergency Authority to Prevent Coal Plant Retirement
The D.C. Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’s order compelling continued operation of Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant under DOE’s emergency authority, finding that Section 202(c) is a narrow, last-resort power reserved for immediate grid-reliability emergencies, not longer-term resource planning.
New BIS “Affiliates Rule” Compliance Date is November 10 Unless Suspended by U.S.-China Truce
A new party screening requirement will soon impact compliance of international dealings unless the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Securities (“BIS”) issues a second extension of its effective date.
California’s New AI Law: What Legal Departments and Outside Counsel Need to Know
Newly enacted California Senate Bill 574 regulates how attorneys use generative AI by amending the California Code of Civil Procedure and requiring attorneys to personally verify every citation, whether sourced from AI or otherwise. It also holds law firms jointly responsible for sanctionable violations by their attorneys. The bill added a new section to the California Code of Civil Procedure (§ 1282.1), barring arbitrators from delegating their decision-making to generative AI.
Beyond Allulose: What Comes Next in Sugar-Related False Advertising Litigation?
The Franco decision has given plaintiffs a potential roadmap for challenging “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar” and similar claims when FDA guidance and existing regulations do not fully align.