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
Judicial Green Light: Court Upholds NLRB’s Cemex Decision
On April 21st, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC., reinforcing a significant shift in federal labor law governing union recognition and employer conduct during organizing campaigns.
The LEAD Model—Kidney Care’s Value-Based Care Journey LEADs Here
The new LEAD Model, launching in 2027, is CMS’s next-generation value-based care framework for kidney care, integrating CKD and ESRD patients into standard ACOs with a 10-year benchmark period, new payment options and greater flexibility for nephrology-led organizations.
DOL Proposes Universal Guidance Meant to Simplify Joint Employer Analysis
On April 22, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division proposed a new rule to clarify joint employer status and the related analysis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act (“MSAPA”).
Only the Strong Survive: Easy Pitfalls to Avoid as a Defamation Plaintiff
Filing a defamation lawsuit is one thing. Surviving the inevitable motion to dismiss is another. A recent case out of the Eastern District of North Carolina, McKnight v. FOXY/WFXC/K 107.1/104.3 Radio Station, et al., Civil Action No. 5:26-cv-102, provides a useful case study in the kinds of missteps that can doom a defamation complaint before it ever reaches discovery.