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
Customs Duty Assists: Regulatory Compliance Overview and FAQ
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
TSA Authorized Representatives—Emerging Practice of Engaging Freight Brokers and Its Practical Implications
Air transportation safety has long been of critical supply chain importance and geopolitical significance, and that role is growing. Supply chain constraints over this decade have driven a need for adaptation, modal diversification and cost containment. To do so, authorized air cargo providers have increasingly explored new ways to add capacity for regulated surface transportation.
Chameleon Carriers—FMCSA’s “Reincarnated” Rule and Enforcement
As the U.S. DOT and its FMCSA ramp up certain elements of domestic enforcement, regulators are utilizing existing laws and regulations that previously were not often invoked. Enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement is one great example.
What’s Old Is New Again: Broker Liability Insulation from the Case Law in the Post-Montgomery Era
The Supreme Court has spoken in its Montgomery v. Caribe Transport decision, and the brokerage sector, and even shipper and motor carriers, are working toward adapting to this “new liability regime.”