Deregulation: Uncertainty and Opportunity
The Trump administration has issued Executive Orders that direct federal agencies to review, rescind, or modify current regulations deemed unconstitutional, overly burdensome, or contrary to the national interest.
Agencies are tasked with identifying regulations that conflict with principles like the non-delegation doctrine, major question doctrine, and those previously upheld under Chevron deference, as well as those imposing significant costs not justified by their public benefits.
Agencies have a 60-day timeline to identify suspect regulations and work with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to revise the regulatory framework. Businesses should monitor these developments closely.
The Trump administration has recently issued a series of Executive Orders on “deregulation,” directing federal agencies to review, rescind, and modify existing federal regulations. This regulatory overhaul presents both challenges and opportunities for regulated businesses.
The rules under which many industries currently operate may undergo significant change in the coming months. Recission or modification of regulations could also spur litigation, adding to the uncertainty. But these deregulation plans also provide an opportunity for businesses to help administrative agencies identify regulations that should be rescinded and shape new rules.
60-Day Review Period
On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” The EO directs agencies to identify, within 60 days, regulations that should be rescinded or modified because they are unconstitutional or not in the national interest. Agencies are also directed to de-prioritize the enforcement of such regulations. The EO contains a list of the types of regulations to be identified for rescission. In addition to identifying “unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional concerns” generally, the EO identifies several categories of constitutionally suspect regulations based on recent Supreme Court decisions that have limited regulatory authority.
The Non-Delegation Doctrine
The EO directs agencies to identify “regulations that are based on unlawful delegation of legislative power.” This criteria invokes the non-delegation doctrine, which has been largely dormant since the New Deal era. The doctrine currently only requires that Congress provide the agency with an “intelligible principle” to guide its rulemaking. Several Supreme Court justices are interested in developing a more robust non-delegation doctrine, and the Supreme Court is set to hear a case this term regarding whether the FCC’s Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional under the non-delegation doctrine. (Regardless of the outcome of that case, Trump’s Executive Order is designed to identify regulations that raise non-delegation concerns.
Loper Bright and Chevron
Agencies are also directed to identify “regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.” This category refers to the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference. (See our previous client alert). Instead of deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, courts are now required to “exercise their independent judgment” when interpreting statutory authority of agency action.
In his ruling, Chief Judge Robert explicitly stated that the Court was not overruling prior cases upholding regulations under the Chevron framework, such as the Clean Air Act which was at issue in Chevron. Those cases are still binding precedent. But Trump’s executive order calls into question regulations that were previously upheld under Chevron because agencies are directed to self-evaluate whether any of their existing regulations are “based on anything other than a best reading of the underlying statutory authority,” regardless of past precedent.
Major Question Doctrine
The last category of legally suspect regulations that agencies are to identify are “regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority.” This category refers to the “major question doctrine,” a principle of statutory interpretation which has recently received increased attention from the Supreme Court. The doctrine requires a clear statement by Congress to delegate regulatory authority over questions of major political or economic significance. For example, in 2022’s West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court struck down EPA emissions regulations under major questions doctrine. The following year, Biden v. Nebraska struck down a student loan forgiveness program).
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The rest of the categories listed in the Executive Order are based on policy or practical considerations, rather than constitutional concerns. Agencies are to identify:
(v) “regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits.”
(vi) “regulations that harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objections;” and
(vii) “regulations that impose undue burdens on small businesses and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.”
These categories focus on the traditional cost-benefit analysis that goes into agency rulemaking, although the executive order focuses its attention on economic growth and potential costs and burdens on businesses.
Next-Steps
Agencies are to identify such regulations within 60 days and are instructed to work with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to develop a regulatory agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations. Presumably agencies will then begin the process of rescinding or modifying the rules which they have identified as suspect, which would include notice and public comment under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
10 to 1 Repeal
This deregulation order follows on the heels of a January 31, 2025 Executive Order providing that for every new regulation any agency proposes to enact, the agency must identify “at least” 10 existing regulations to be rescinded. In addition, together with the Office of Management and Budget, agencies must determine the incremental costs imposed by new regulations and ensure that the net costs – new costs minus the cost savings of rescinded regulations – are “substantially” less than zero. See accompanying Fact Sheet.
Both Executive Orders apply generally to all executive agencies, except regulations that address military or foreign affairs functions, homeland security or immigration-related initiatives.
What This Means For Your Business
In the short term, regulated businesses should be prepared for uncertainty regarding the future of the rules governing their industries. To get ahead of the curve, companies should review the entire landscape of federal regulations which govern their operations and consider whether any regulation falls within the categories specified in the Executive Order. Companies should consider how a change would affect the competitive landscape of their business and consider how to prepare for such change. It will also be important to monitor proposed changes and participate in public comment periods.
Moreover, if a regulation is particularly burdensome (or helpful), there is an opportunity to highlight the need for reform (or maintaining the status quo) directly to the governing agency and Congress. Businesses and their trade associations can prepare white papers or engage in direct advocacy to rescind or modify harmful regulations and to keep helpful regulations.
Together with recent changes in regulatory law announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, the new administration’s deregulatory agenda represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for American business to participate in reshaping the regulatory landscape.
President’s Remarks Keep the Pressure on Congress to Deliver on Taxes
President Trump used his 4 March 2025 address to the joint session of Congress to remind the American public and Congressional leaders that he is serious about adding his imprimatur to the tax code—and in the process adding to the pressure that Republican leadership and tax committee chairs already face as they attempt to extend the 2017 tax cuts using budget reconciliation.
The President highlighted several tax policies he has championed during his campaign and in the weeks following his inauguration. On the business side, he touted a reduced tax rate on US manufacturers and 100% full expensing retroactive to 20 January 2025, (Inauguration Day). In addition to making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax cuts permanent, he listed no taxes on tips, overtime, social security, and deductibility of car loan interest if the vehicle is produced in the United States, for individuals. Notably, he did not mention his proposal to lift the cap on state and local taxes (SALT), an issue that continues to divide the Republican caucus.
Each of these proposals has a cost, increasing the amount of revenue offsets that the tax writers must find to pay for them, or increasing the deficit if they do not, assuming a current law baseline. Indeed, some of the President’s other proposals would be offsets, which he also did not mention during his remarks. These include scaling back on the ability of sports team owners to amortize the cost of player contracts and taxing carried interest as ordinary income.
Congressional Republicans are in the midst of the arcane budgetary practice called budget reconciliation to enact tax reform without having to negotiate with or rely on Democrats. Because it is, in fact, a budgetary maneuver, the cost of tax reforms will be restricted by budget reconciliation instructions included in a budget resolution. The House resolution limits a decrease in revenue to US$4.5 trillion—barely enough to extend the 2017 tax cuts let alone accommodate the President’s own priorities, which House members view as something that they must address, especially after the President highlighted them in his joint session remarks. They do have some flexibility since Mr. Trump has not been particularly specific about most details, but when they have no room to spare to begin with that may be a distinction without a difference. These challenges are exacerbated by extremely tight margins in the House, intraparty tensions about cuts in benefits, adding to the deficit, and other assumptions that are part of the budget reconciliation process.
Although he did not specifically mention taxes of foreign jurisdictions during his remarks about imposing reciprocal tariffs—as some of his executive orders do—the President may have indirectly implicated certain foreign taxes and information-reporting regimes when he referred to “non-monetary” tariffs. He gave Speaker Johnson permission to use tariff revenues to reduce the deficit or for “anything you want to;” perhaps to help pay for tax cuts in budget reconciliation.
The President’s remarks reinforced his commitment to his campaign and post-inaugural tax proposals. It will be up to his House and Senate counterparts to sharpen their pencils and their elbows to successfully figure out how to accommodate President Trump’s priorities as part of the budget reconciliation process.
Mandatory Captive Rules in Limbo for California Employers – 2 Federal Lawsuits Challenge SB 399 and Looming Issue Before the NLRB
As discussed in our recent article, the introduction of SB 399 in California (approved and added as California Labor Code section 1137) sparked significant discussion and concern among California employers with union employees. The legislation, which became effective January 1, 2025, restricts so-called “captive audience meetings” by prohibiting employers from discharging or disciplining employees for refusing to attend mandatory employer-sponsored meetings. Many employers believe the law unnecessarily restrains their ability to communicate effectively and transparently with employees about important issues.
In response to SB 399, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 31, 2024 (the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of SB 399, arguing it infringes on employers’ free speech rights and is otherwise preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). On February 11, 2025, the Liberty Justice Center and California Justice Center filed a second federal lawsuit in the same court, raising similar constitutional arguments (“Second Lawsuit” and collectively “the Lawsuits”). The Lawsuits seek to enjoin SB 399 and restore employer free speech rights across the state of California.
Relatedly, on February 14, 2025, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) William B. Cowen issued his first General Counsel Memorandum (“GC Memo”) GC 25-05, rescinding multiple policies issued by the previous NLRB General Counsel. Among others, the GC Memo rescinded prior federal guidance concerning the right to refrain from captive audience and other mandatory meetings under the NLRA, GC 22-04.
The California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act
SB 399, or the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act (the “California Act”), prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against employees who choose not to attend meetings where opinions on religious or political matters, including unionization, are expressed. Previously, employers were permitted to require employee attendance at such meetings. The California Act is currently enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and is ostensibly designed to protect employees from presumably coercive tactics that could influence their decisions regarding union policies.
The California Act follows a larger trend among several states that have enacted similar captive audience bans.
The Constitutional Challenge to the California Act
The Lawsuits in the Eastern District of California challenge the California Act on essentially two grounds. First, the Lawsuits argue the California Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Second, the Lawsuits argue the California Act is preempted by the NLRA.
The Lawsuits contend the California Act unfairly targets employers’ viewpoints on political matters by regulating the content of their communications and suppressing their ability to speak freely, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, by restricting speech on “matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization,” the Lawsuits argue that the California Act is overbroad and constitutes unconstitutional content-based discrimination aimed at chilling employers’ speech. The Lawsuits also claim the California Act will potentially leave workers without a full understanding of the implications of unionization.
Additionally, the Lawsuits argue the California Act is preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRA already provides a comprehensive framework for labor relations. Specifically, the Lawsuits argue that the California Act conflicts with and intrudes on an area that the federal government has decided to exclusively regulate, as evidenced by NLRA Section 8(c), which protects employers’ rights to express views on unionization, provided there are no threats or promises of benefits.
The Lawsuits ask for a temporary and permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the California Act.
Federal Law – The Looming NLRA Issue Under the NLRB
On November 13, 2024, the NLRB overturned decades of precedent by finding that requiring employees “to attend a meeting at which the employer expresses its views on unionization” violates the NLRA. That NLRB ruling was appealed and is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
This NLRB ruling and its applicability to state-sponsored “captive audience” meeting ban laws, including the California Act, may be short-lived once the five-member NLRB regains a Republican majority. However, the NLRB currently lacks a quorum after Trump fired former NLRB Member, Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the NLRB with one Democrat, one Republican, and three vacancies. The termination of former Member Wilcox is currently being litigated.
In addition, on February 14, 2024, the new Acting General Counsel of the NLRB signaled a new policy direction for federal labor law under the Trump administration by issuing GC Memo 25-05, rescinding over a dozen policies endorsed by previous leadership, including GC Memo 22-04 concerning captive audience meetings. (We discussed GC Memo 25-05 here.) While GC memos are not binding law, they act to inform Regional NLRB offices of the General Counsel’s priorities in enforcing the NLRA. Significantly, GC Memo 25-05 does not reverse the current application of the NLRB’s November 13, 2024 decision concerning captive audience meetings, but it does indicate a new NLRB may view the current rule of federal labor law differently.
Key Takeaways for California Employers
The outcome of the Lawsuits are uncertain and the NLRB is in a state of flux. California employers should reassess meeting policies and practices and develop an approach that makes sense for their individual business and risk profile given the current state and federal law considerations. California employers should monitor developments in this area, and companies with questions concerning SB 399 should contact experienced labor counsel.
Assembly Bill 3 Proposes to Raise Jurisdictional Cap on Nevada Diversion Program
Jurisdictional changes may be coming to Nevada’s court annexed non-binding arbitration program, which currently involves most civil cases where the amount in controversy is $50,000 or less. Nevada’s courts have proposed AB 3, which is currently before the Assembly’s judiciary committee. This bill would change the NRS 38.310(1)(a) jurisdictional cap for that program from $50,000 to $100,000, effective for cases filed on or after January 1, 2026. The arbitration program was created in 1992 with an original cap of $25,000. That cap was increased to $40,000 in 1995 and raised to $50,000 in 2005. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator estimates that the buying power of $50,000 in February 2005 equates to approximately $83,000 of buying power in January 2025.
Proponents of AB 3 testified at a committee hearing that the percentage of civil cases entering the program has dropped by nearly 20% in recent years due to inflationary pressures negatively impacting medical bills, property damage repairs, and other types of damages. If fewer cases enter the program, the caseload for the district courts increases. Proponents assert that by increasing the cap to $100,000, the number of cases entering the program should return to historical averages.
AB 3 generally appears to benefit defense clients. The arbitration program was expressly designed to streamline discovery and reduce litigation costs, allowing lower-value disputes to be litigated on their merits. Raising the jurisdictional cap to $100,000 would benefit litigants by enabling more cases to enter the program. Another benefit of program participation is that principal damages are capped at the jurisdictional maximum.
At a committee hearing on February 17, several attorneys testified in support of AB 3, but there was no participation from broker or carrier lobbying groups. Notably, the plaintiff-oriented Nevada Justice Association (NJA) testified that while it presently opposes AB 3, it is willing to work with the bill’s proponents to reach a compromise. However, the NJA did not hint regarding what it may want in return for supporting AB 3.
The judiciary committee did not vote on AB 3 at the February 17 hearing but is expected to continue consideration of AB 3.
Virginia Poised to Become Second State to Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation
Go-To Guide:
Virginia’s HB 2094 applies to high-risk AI system developers and deployers and focuses on consumer protection.
The bill covers AI systems that autonomously make or significantly influence consequential decisions without meaningful human oversight.
Developers must document system limits, ensure transparency, and manage risks, while deployers must disclose AI usage and conduct impact assessments.
Generative AI outputs must be identifiable, with limited exceptions.
The attorney general would oversee enforcement, with penalties up to $10,000 per violation and a discretionary 45-day cure period.
HB 2094 is narrower than the Colorado AI Act (CAIA, with clearer transparency obligations and trade secret protections, and differs from the EU AI Act, which imposes stricter, risk-based compliance rules.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Virginia General Assembly passed the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence (AI) Developer and Deployer Act (HB 2094). If signed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Virginia would become the second U.S. state to implement a broad framework regulating AI use, particularly in high-risk applications.1 The bill is closely modeled on the CAIA and would take effect on July 1, 2026.
This GT Alert covers to whom the bill applies, important definitions, key differences with the CAIA, and potential future implications.
To Whom Does HB 2094 Apply?
HB 2094 applies to any person doing business in Virginia that develops or deploys a high-risk AI system. “Developers” refer to organizations that offer, sell, lease, give, or otherwise make high-risk AI systems available to deployers in Virginia. The requirements HB 2094 imposes on developers would also apply to a person who intentionally and substantially modifies an existing high-risk AI system. “Deployers” refer to organizations that deploy or use high-risk AI systems to make consequential decisions about Virginians.
How Does HB 2094 Work?
Key Definitions
HB 2094 aims to protect Virginia residents acting in their individual capacities. It would not apply to Virginia residents who act in a commercial or employment context. Furthermore, HB 2094 defines “generative artificial intelligence systems” as AI systems that incorporate generative AI, which includes the capability of “producing and [being] used to produce synthetic content, including audio, images, text, and videos.”
HB 2094’s definition of “high-risk AI” would apply only to machine-learning-based systems that (i) serve as the principal basis for consequential decisions, meaning they operate without human oversight and (ii) that are explicitly intended to autonomously make or substantially influence such decisions.
High-risk applications include parole, probation, pardons, other forms of release from incarceration or court supervision, and determinations related to marital status. As the bill would not apply to government entities, it is not yet clear which private sector decisions might be in scope of these high-risk applications.
Requirements
HB 2094 places obligations on AI developers and deployers to mitigate risks associated with algorithmic discrimination and ensure transparency. It establishes a duty of care, disclosure, and risk management requirements for high-risk AI system developers, along with consumer disclosure obligations and impact assessments for deployers. Developers must document known or reasonably known limitations in AI systems. Generated or substantially modified synthetic content from generative AI high-risk systems must be made identifiable and detectable using industry-standard tools, comply with applicable accessibility requirements where feasible, and ensure the synthetic content is identified at the time of generation, with exceptions for low-risk or creative applications such that it “does not hinder the display or enjoyment of such work or program.” The bill references established AI risk frameworks such as NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001. Exemptions
Certain exclusions apply under HB 2094, including AI use in response to a consumer request or to provide a requested service or product under a contract. There are also limited exceptions for financial services and broader exemptions for healthcare and insurance sectors.
Enforcement
The bill grants enforcement authority to the attorney general and establishes penalties for noncompliance. Violations may result in fines up to $1,000 per occurrence, with attorney fee shifting, while willful violations may carry fines up to $10,000 per occurrence. Each violation would be considered separately for penalty assessment. The attorney general must issue a civil investigative demand before initiating enforcement action, and a discretionary 45-day right to cure period is available to address violations. There is no private right of action under HB 2094.
Key Differences With the CAIA
While HB 2094 is closely modeled on the CAIA, it introduces notable differences. HB 2094 limits its definition of consumers to individual and household contexts, and explicitly excludes commercial and employment contexts. It defines “high-risk AI” more narrowly, focusing only on systems that operate without meaningful human oversight and serve as the principal basis for consequential decisions, while adding a couple new use cases to the scope of “high-risk” uses. It also provides clearer guidelines on when a developer becomes a deployer, imposes more specific documentation and transparency obligations, and enhances trade secret protections. Unlike CAIA, HB 2094 does not require reporting algorithmic discrimination to the attorney general and allows a discretionary 45-day right to cure violations. Additionally, it expands the list of high-risk uses to include decisions related to parole, probation, pardons, and marital status.
While HB 2094 aligns with aspects of the CAIA, it differs from the broader and more stringent EU AI Act, which imposes risk-based AI classifications, stricter compliance obligations, and significant penalties for violations. HB 2094 also does not contain direct incident reporting requirements, public disclosure requirements, or a small business exception. Finally, HB 2094 upholds a higher threshold than CAIA for consumer rights when a high-risk AI makes a negative decision relating to a consumer, requiring that the AI system must have processed personal data beyond what the consumer directly provided.
Conclusion
If signed into law, HB 2094 would make Virginia the second U.S. state to implement comprehensive AI regulations, setting guidelines for high-risk AI systems while seeking to address concerns about transparency and algorithmic discrimination. With enforcement potentially beginning in 2026, businesses developing or deploying AI in Virginia should proactively assess their compliance obligations and prepare for the new regulatory framework, including where the organization is also subject to obligations under the CAIA.
1 See also GT’s blog post on the Colorado AI Act. Other states have regulated specific uses of AI or associated technologies, such as California and Utah, which, respectively, regulate interaction with bots and Generative AI.
Virginia Legislature Passes AI Bill
On February 20, 2025, the Virginia legislature passed the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act (the “Act”).
The Act is a comprehensive bill that is focused on accountability and transparency in AI systems. The Act would apply to developers and deployers of “high-risk” AI systems that do business in Virginia. An AI system would be considered high-risk if it is intended to autonomously make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision. Under the Act, a consequential decision means a “decision that has a material legal, or similarly significant, effect on the provision or denial to any consumer” of: (1) parole, probation, a pardon, or any other release from incarceration or court supervision; (2) education enrollment or an education opportunity; (3) access to employment; (4) a financial or lending service; (5) access to health care services; (6) housing; (7) insurance; (8) marital status or (9) a legal service. The Act excludes a number of activities from what is considered a high-risk AI system, such as if the system is intended to perform a narrow procedural task or improve the result of a previously completed human activity.
The Act includes requirements that differ depending on whether the covered business is an AI system developer or deployer. The requirements are generally aimed at avoiding algorithmic discrimination, ensuring impact assessments, promoting AI risk management frameworks, and ensuring transparency and protection against adverse decisions.
The Virginia Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce the Act. Violations of the Act are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000, plus reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs. The penalty can be increased up to $10,000 for willful violations. Notably, the Act states that each violation is a separate violation. The Act also provides a 45-day cure period.
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin has until March 24, 2025 to sign, veto or return the bill with amendments. If enacted, the law would take effect July 1, 2026.
Employment Law This Week – Workplace Law Shake-Up – DEI Challenges, NLRB Reversals, and EEOC Actions [Video, Podcast]
This week, we’re covering significant updates shaping workplace policies, including shifts in regulations and enforcement related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); evolving approaches to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance; and recent changes in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) guidance.
Anti-DEI Executive Orders Blocked, but Employers Scale Back
A Maryland district court temporarily blocked significant portions of two anti-DEI executive orders signed in the early days of President Trump’s administration. This story is still developing, and last week, the Trump administration appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Regardless of whether the executive orders survive, many federal contractors and private businesses are assessing and adjusting DEI policies, programming, and public statements.
EEOC Cracks Down on DEI and Gender Identity Policies
Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a recent statement that the agency will seek to root out “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” Lucas noted that the EEOC will also target the Biden administration’s “gender identity agenda” as well as anti-American bias at private businesses.
NLRB Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance
Acting NLRB General Counsel William Cowan recently rescinded a group of Biden-era memos from former General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. With the firing of member Gwynne Wilcox in the first days of the Trump administration, the NLRB has no quorum and cannot currently issue decisions, but more reversals are likely coming.
Cultivated Meat: Legislative Challenges from Georgia and South Dakota
As we’ve previously blogged, the regulatory landscape for cultivated meat is rapidly evolving with states like Nebraska, Florida, and Alabama taking significant steps to restrict or ban these products. The recent legislative actions in Georgia and South Dakota are the latest in various states’ efforts to regulate or restrict these products more stringently.
Georgia General Assembly- HB 163:
On February 27, 2025, the Georgia House of Representatives passed House Bill 163, which, if passed by the Senate, would require restaurants and other food vendors to disclose whether their menu items contain cultivated meat, plant-based meat alternatives, or both. The bill defines “cell-cultured meat” as any food product artificially grown from cell cultures of animal muscle or organ tissues, designed to mimic conventional meat products.
Similarly, “plant-based meat alternatives” are defined as products derived from plants that share sensory characteristics with traditional meat. The bill has passed the Georgia House of Representatives and is currently under review by the Senate Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee.
South Dakota- HB 1118
Meanwhile, South Dakota has taken a different stance with House Bill 1118, which has already passed into law. This legislation prohibits the use of state funds for the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured protein.
The bill defines “cell-cultured protein” as any product made wholly or in part from cell cultures or the DNA of a host animal, grown outside a live animal.
These bills represent the latest developments of state-level challenges being presented to the cultivated meat industry.
USCIS Announces Noncitizen Registration Requirement
On February 25, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a registration and fingerprinting requirement for noncitizens present in the United States.
Quick Hits
All noncitizens fourteen years of age or older who were not fingerprinted or registered when applying for a U.S. visa (or previously registered children who turn fourteen years old) and who remain in the United States for thirty days or longer must apply for registration and fingerprinting.
The specific process for registration has not yet been announced.
Those who are required to register should create a USCIS online account to prepare for the registration process. Failure to comply will result in civil fines and potential criminal misdemeanor charges.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” which expands the administration’s efforts to address illegal entry and unlawful presence of foreign nationals. The EO also authorizes the establishment of federal Homeland Security Task Forces to coordinate with state and local law enforcement agencies, and it requires all noncitizens to register their status to provide law enforcement with the information necessary to fulfill immigration status verification.
USCIS issued the initial details on the registration process, which includes the requirement for all noncitizens fourteen years of age or older who were not fingerprinted or registered when applying for a U.S. visa (or previously registered children who turn fourteen years old) and who remain in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and fingerprinting. USCIS has urged those who are required to register to create a USCIS online account to prepare for the upcoming registration process.
Many noncitizens present in the United States have already fulfilled the registration requirement, and no further action should be required to register. Noncitizens who are already compliant and registered include the following:
individuals issued a Form I-94 or I-94W (paper or electronic) admission record upon entry into the United States;
individuals issued immigrant or nonimmigrant visas prior to their entry into the United States;
individuals issued an employment authorization document (EAD);
applicants for permanent residence using certain forms, including Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
individuals paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5), even if the period of parole has expired;
individuals who have been placed in removal proceedings;
individuals issued Border Crossing Cards; and
lawful permanent residents.
Noncitizens who are not registered and will be expected to complete the registration process include those in the following categories:
previously registered children who turn fourteen years old (they must reregister within thirty days of reaching their fourteenth birthday);
individuals who entered the United States without being inspected and admitted or paroled;
individuals who are present in the United States under a humanitarian program and have not been issued an EAD card or other proof of registration, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, temporary protected status (TPS) recipients, and those present under other humanitarian programs; and
Canadian visitors who entered the United States via a land border port of entry, if they were not issued an I-94 admission record upon entry and will remain in the United States for at least thirty days.
Failure to comply with the registration requirement may result in civil fines and potential criminal misdemeanor charges. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue official evidence of registration, which all noncitizens over the age of eighteen will be expected to carry at all times.
Next Steps
DHS will soon announce the details of the registration process. Noncitizens present in the United States should create a USCIS online account to prepare for the registration process.
Farm to Fly Act Reintroduced in Congress, Would Expand Use of Biofuels for Aviation
On January 16, 2025, Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Joni Ernst (R-IA) reintroduced the Farm to Fly Act (S. 144), which would help accelerate the production and development of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) through existing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs to allow further growth for alternative fuels to be used in the aviation sector and create new markets for American farmers. According to Moran’s January 21, 2025, press release, the Farm to Fly Act would:
Clarify eligibility for SAF within current USDA Bio-Energy Programs, expanding markets for American agricultural crops through aviation bioenergy;
Provide for greater collaboration for aviation biofuels throughout USDA agency mission areas, increasing private sector partnerships; and
Affirm a common definition of SAF for USDA purposes, as widely supported by industry to enable U.S. crops to contribute most effectively to aviation renewable fuels.
The press release notes that in September 2024, Senators Moran, Duckworth, Klobuchar, and John Boozman (R-AR) launched the Sustainable Aviation Caucus “to promote the longevity of the aviation and renewable fuels industries.” Representatives Max Miller (R-OH), Mike Flood (R-NE), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Nikki Budzinski (D-IL), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Tracey Mann (R-KS), Mike Bost (R-IL), Don Bacon (R-NE), Randy Feenstra (R-IA), Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Mark Alford (R-MO), Eric Sorensen (D-IL), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), and Michelle Fischbach (R-MN) reintroduced companion legislation (H.R. 1719) in the House on February 27, 2025.
Michigan Amends Its Minimum Wage Law With Additional Changes
On February 21, 2025, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Senate Bill 8, amending the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA)—Michigan’s minimum wage law—which was set to be reinstated effective the same day. The amendments became effective upon signing. Governor Whitmer also signed House Bill 4002, amending the paid sick leave law, the same day.
The IWOWA amendment did not change the minimum wage that employers and employees expected to go into effect on February 21, 2025 (at the rate of $12.48 per hour), but did change the minimum wage rates (and effective dates) for future years, and also revised the minimum cash wage rates for tipped employees and corresponding tip credit amounts.
Quick Hits
On February 21, 2025, Governor Whitmer signed Senate Bill 8, amending Michigan’s minimum wage law, and House Bill 4002, amending the paid sick leave law, both of which became effective immediately.
The amendments to the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA) did not alter the expected minimum wage increase to $12.48 per hour on February 21, 2025, but adjusted future minimum wage rates and timelines, as well as revised the minimum cash wage rates for tipped employees and corresponding tip credit amounts.
These changes follow a Michigan Supreme Court ruling on July 31, 2024, which reinstated the original voter initiatives for minimum wage and paid sick leave, set to take effect on February 21, 2025.
Background
In 2018, the Michigan legislature adopted two voter initiatives—one that raised the minimum wage and was to gradually eliminate the tip credit, and another that increased employees’ paid sick time rights. Before they went into effect, the legislature amended and substantially rolled back the minimum wage increases and paid sick leave entitlements, starting in 2019. There have been several developments since that time, including the following:
On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the amended (minimized) versions of IWOWA and the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) were unconstitutional and reinstated the originally adopted voter initiatives, to become effective on February 21, 2025.
On October 1, 2024, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) clarified that Michigan’s minimum wage would increase twice in 2025:
first on January 1, 2025 (to $10.56), following the usual increase schedule, and
again on February 21, 2025 (to $12.48) in accordance with the July 31, 2024 decision.
Changes to Minimum Wage and Tip Credit
On February 21, 2025, the Michigan legislature approved Senate Bill 8 to amend the minimum wage and tip credit amounts, and Governor Whitmer signed the bill into law. The main changes include (a) a faster increase to a $15.00 minimum wage (which will take effect by 2027), and (b) a slower increase in the minimum cash wage for tipped employees, which will reach 50 percent of the general minimum wage by 2031 (instead of reaching 100 percent of the minimum wage by 2030)—which also means the tip credit no longer will be phased out completely by 2030, but will be reduced only to 50 percent of the minimum wage.
While the official amendment contains additional details, here are the rate and datechanges in the minimum wage, tipped minimum wage, and tip credit:
Provision
Previous Schedule (Based on July 31, 2024 Ruling Reinstating IWOWA)
New Schedule (Based on February 21, 2025 Amendments)
Minimum Wage
February 21, 2025: $12.48 February 21, 2026: $13.29 February 21, 2027: $14.16 February 21, 2028: $14.97 2029-2030: TBD
February 21, 2025: $12.48 January 1, 2026: $13.73 January 1, 2027: $15.00 January 1, 2028: TBD (adjusted for inflation) January 1, 2029: TBD January 1, 2030: TBD January 1, 2031: TBD
Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees (And Percentage of Minimum Wage)
February 21, 2025: $5.99 (48%of minimum wage (MW)) February 21, 2026: $7.97 (60% of MW) February 21, 2027: $9.91 (70% of MW) February 21, 2028: $11.98 (80% of MW) February 21, 2029: TBD (90% of MW) February 21, 2030: TBD (100% of MW)
February 21, 2025: $4.74 (38% of minimum wage (MW)) January 1, 2026: $5.49 (40% of MW) January 1, 2027: $6.30 (42% of MW) January 1, 2028: TBD (44% of MW) January 1, 2029: TBD (46% of MW) January 1, 2030: TBD (48% of MW) January 1, 2031: TBD (50% of MW)
Maximum Tip Credit
February 21, 2025: $6.49 February 21, 2026: $5.32 February 21, 2027: $4.25 February 21, 2028: $2.99 February 21, 2029: TBD (based on MW) February 21, 2030: none
February 21, 2025: $7.74 January 1, 2026: $8.24 January 1, 2027: $8.70 January 1, 2028: TBD (based on MW) January 1, 2029: TBD January 1, 2030: TBD January 1, 2031: TBD
California Governor’s Executive Order on Disaster Unemployment Assistance for Child Care Providers in Los Angeles
On February 11, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to support childcare providers impacted by the recent wildfires in Los Angeles. This order ensures that those affected are aware of their eligibility for Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) and receive the necessary support to apply.
In addition to supporting individual workers, the EDD offers several disaster-related services to employers affected by emergencies. These services are designed to provide financial relief and support business continuity during challenging times.
Employers directly impacted by a disaster can request up to a two-month extension to file their state payroll reports and deposit payroll taxes without penalty or interest.
The EDD collaborates with Local Assistance Centers and Disaster Recovery Centers established by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) or federal authorities to provide comprehensive support to affected businesses.
Employers can also access information about Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits for their eligible workers, ensuring that employees who are unable to work due to disaster-related reasons receive the necessary financial support.