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
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.
Key Considerations for Businesses facing Defamation Issues: Strategies for Protecting Your Reputation and Brand
Defamation risk for businesses has never been higher. Even five years ago, unfavorable press could be expected to fade from …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court Offers Further Direction on Default Interest and Fee Recovery
The SDNY Bankruptcy Court’s written decision in 1300 Desert Willow builds on the framework established in Mako, providing additional guidance on when a debtor can overcome the presumption that an oversecured creditor is entitled to post-petition default interest at the contractual rate.