Temporary Pause on Foreign Student and Exchange Visitor F, M, and J Visa Interviews
According to an internal State Department cable dated May 27, 2025, all consular interviews for the F, M, and J visa applicants are to be temporarily paused. This is only until new vetting procedures are published in the next several business days.
The cable cites Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, known respectively as Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats and Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The goal is to prepare for expanded social media vetting of all student and exchange visitor (FMJ) visa applicants.
The cable states “effective immediately…consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, or J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued, which we anticipate in the coming days.”
The cable says that scheduled appointments can proceed under current guidelines, however if this new vetting policy comes into being soon, all of the existing appointments may be subject to additional vetting.
The cable does leave some opportunity for new appointments. It says that if a consular section desires to seek new appointments for FMJ applicants during this period, the consular section must consult with the Visa Office to do so.
US Supreme Court Will Allow Trump Administration to End TPS Program for Venezuelans
On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a district court order that had temporarily postponed the April 7 termination of the 2023 Venezuela Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation. The ruling allows the Trump administration to end legal protection for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans now living in the United States under a program that had protected them from deportation known as TPS. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s request to lift a judge’s order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to terminate TPS under the 2023 designation for Venezuela.
The termination of the 2023 designation may open the door for possible deportations soon. The decision appears to state that that the group has effectively lost their status and employment authorization. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may release guidance regarding its implementation of the reinstated termination.
Venezuelans in the United States with TPS are divided into two groups: those who received TPS in 2021 when the Biden administration initially designated Venezuela for TPS, and those who received TPS when the program was extended in 2023. This Supreme Court decision does not affect the approximately 250,000 Venezuelans who were given the protection in 2021.
TPS allows people to live and work in the United States legally if their home countries are deemed unsafe, including wars, natural disasters, or other “extraordinary and temporary” conditions.
Employers should be aware that some workers may lose their work authorization and ability to remain lawfully in the United States with limited notice. Employers should review their workforce for employees relying on Venezuelan TPS. Employers can then review expiration dates and determine if impacted employees have alternative immigration options. At the same time, employers should avoid any premature terminations pending further guidance from the U.S. government. Finally, employers should have a workforce contingency plan.
Employers should refer to the TPS webpage for updates.
Federal Court Enjoins DHS’s Revocation of Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
On May 22, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem ordered the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to terminate Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (“SEVP”) certification for alleged “pro-terrorist conduct.” SEVP certification enables universities to enroll international students.
The revocation of Harvard’s SEVP authorization has sent shockwaves through the academic community, as it means Harvard would not be able to enroll international students and enrolled students must transfer to another university, obtain some other legal visa status, or depart the U.S. The DHS decision is premised on allegations that Harvard’s leadership has failed to address pervasive antisemitism and pro-terrorist conduct on its campus, as well as accusations of collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party, and failed to cooperate with DHS’s demands for information regarding its students.
On May 23, 2025, Harvard filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking an injunction on revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification, alleging that the revocation violates both the U.S. Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act. On the same day, the District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the U.S. government and its agents, including DHS, from implementing the SEVP termination until there is a hearing on the matter. The Court found that Harvard would face immediate and irreparable injury if the termination takes effect before such a hearing.
If the termination takes effect, the impact of the decision will be substantial. Harvard, which had 6,793 international students enrolled during the 2024-2025 academic year, would face the loss of one quarter of its student population. International students would either have to transfer to other institutions or lose their legal student status in the U.S. by remaining enrolled at Harvard. Termination would have serious financial and academic implications, as international students contribute substantially to Harvard’s revenue and academic scholarship. The university’s leadership has vowed to provide guidance and support to affected students during this tumultuous period.
Beltway Buzz, May 23, 2025
The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
SCOTUS: Wilcox to Remain Off NLRB. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision blocking NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox’s reinstatement to the NLRB while her challenge makes its way through the courts. The stay will remain effective through the appeals stage and until the Supreme Court declines to review the case or issues a decision on the merits.
House Passes Massive Tax Passage. Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives this week passed a far-reaching tax and spending package by a narrow 215–214 vote. The bill would extend provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, provide additional funding for national security and immigration enforcement, roll back green energy tax incentives, and add Medicaid work requirements. On the labor and employment policy front, the bill includes provisions to allow deductions for income earned as tips or overtime pay. Now it is the U.S. Senate’s turn, where some Republicans have expressed some skepticism about the bill, so any final legislation that the U.S. Congress may pass will likely be different than what the House passed this week.
Senate Says “Yes” to “No Tax on Tips.” In a surprise move, the U.S. Senate this week passed the No Tax on Tips Act (S.129). Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen (NV), a cosponsor of the bill, asked that the bill be passed via the Senate’s unanimous consent mechanism, and no one objected. Passage of a bill this significant in this manner is unusual. Here are the details:
The bill would allow individuals a 100 percent tax deduction on income from qualified tips, up to $25,000.
Individuals claiming the tip deduction must be employed “in an occupation which traditionally and customarily received tips,” as set forth in a pending list to be published by the secretary of the treasury.
The deduction is available to individuals earning $160,000 or less in 2025, with this amount being adjusted for inflation going forward.
Language in the Senate-passed No Tax on Tips Act is similar in concept to the provisions included in the tax package described above. However, there are some significant differences in the details. It is unclear at this time how this will be resolved, but some form of “no tax on tips” has a very good chance of being enacted in this Congress.
2024 EEO-1 Data Collection Opens, With Warning From Acting Chair. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection opened this week (May 20, 2025) with covered employers having until June 24, 2025, to file. In a statement accompanying the announcement of the opening of the data collection, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas wrote, “Your company or organization may not use information about your employees’ race/ethnicity or sex—including demographic data you collect and report in EEO-1 Component 1 reports—to facilitate unlawful employment discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in violation of Title VII.
House Committee Examines “Modern Workers.” On May 20, 2025, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing entitled “Empowering the Modern Worker.” The hearing focused on the benefits of worker flexibility, practical problems associated with the “ABC” worker classification test (as embodied in California’s A.B. 5), and the value of portable benefits, as set forth in the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.R. 1319). The hearing follows on the heels of a March 25, 2025, hearing about the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the modern workplace.
DOL, MSHRC Nominees on the Move. On May 22, 2025, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee advanced the following nominations en bloc by a party-line vote of 12–11:
Julie Hocker to serve as assistant secretary of labor and head the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy
Marco Rajkovich to serve as a commissioner of the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (MSHRC)
Wayne Palmer to serve as assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, leading the DOL’s Mine Safety and Health Administration
Henry Mack III to serve as assistant secretary of labor, leading the DOL’s Employment and Training Administration
The nominations now move to the Senate floor.
NLRB Acting GC Issues New Guidance on Settlement Agreements. On May 16, 2025, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued a memorandum entitled, “Seeking Remedial Relief in Settlement Agreements.” The memorandum follows on Cowen’s rescission of various memoranda issued by his predecessor that instructed NLRB regional offices to expand the scope of remedies in settlement agreements (e.g., reimbursement of car loan payments, letters of apology, etc.). Cowen’s latest memo provides regional directors with more discretion in approving settlement agreements, and it reminds them that they should seek make-whole relief in settlement agreements, but “should be mindful of not allowing our remedial enthusiasm to distract us from achieving a prompt and fair resolution of disputed matters.”
SCOTUS Permits Cancelation of Venezuela TPS. In an 8–1 order issued this week, the Supreme Court stayed a March 31, 2025, decision by a federal court to preliminarily block the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) January 28, 2025, notice of termination of the 2021 and 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Venezuela. While both the Supreme Court’s order and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) TPS website are unclear as to the ruling’s impact on stakeholders, it appears that applicable dates for termination of the 2023 TPS designation reverts to April 7, 2025, while the 2021 TPS designation will remain in effect until September 10, 2025. Because the Supreme Court’s decision only concerns the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the underlying legal challenge to the TPS termination decision will continue.
Administration Pauses Enforcement of Mental Health Parity Regs. Last week, at the request of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed a lawsuit challenging 2024 changes to regulations implementing provisions of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). As a result, the departments issued a statement noting that they will not enforce the 2024 regulatory changes and will “reconsider the 2024 Final Rule, including whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking rescinding or modifying the regulation through notice and comment rulemaking.”
Memorial Day. This weekend, the Buzz will take time to remember the brave men and women who died in service to our country. We wrote about the cultural and legislative origins of Memorial Day several years ago.
Multistate Compliance Roundup: State Laws Will Take Effect July 1, 2025
A number of employment-related laws recently passed in various states that impact the workplace will take effect on July 1, 2025.
Quick Hits
New state laws will impact minimum wage, leaves of absence, restrictive covenants, child labor, and other workplace issues.
These laws will take effect on July 1, 2025.
Here is a roundup briefly summarizing the new state laws:
Alaska Ballot Measure 1 increases the minimum wage to $13.00 per hour, establishes paid sick leave, and prohibits employers from holding mandatory meetings to share political or religious opinions. Employers will be required to provide one hour of paid sick leave per thirty hours worked.
In California, Los Angeles County passed a Fair Workweek Ordinance, which includes predictive scheduling provisions. It requires employers to provide advance notice of schedule changes, premium pay for schedule changes, and rest time between shifts. It applies to retail businesses that have at least 300 employees worldwide. In addition, California’s minimum wage will increase to $17.81 per hour.
Indiana Senate Bill 409 requires employers to give workers time off to attend a school attendance conference or case conference meeting for their child. The time off can be unpaid.
Kansas Senate Bill (SB) 241 clarifies that certain nonsolicitation agreements with business owners and employees are presumptively enforceable and not a restraint on trade.
In New Hampshire, employers with six or more employees will be required to provide nursing mothers with a reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom space to express milk for up to one year after their child’s birth. The law mandates an unpaid break of approximately thirty minutes for every three hours of work.
Oregon will increase its minimum wage to $15.05 per hour.
In Vermont, H. 704 requires employers with five or more employees to include wage ranges in job advertisements. Another law, H. 259, requires hospitals to develop and implement a security plan for preventing workplace violence and establish a workplace violence incident reporting system.
In Virginia, employers will be prohibited from entering into a noncompete agreement with any employee who earns less than $76,081 annually or is entitled to overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Washington, D.C., will raise its minimum wage to $18.00 per hour. The minimum wage for tipped employees will increase to $12.00 per hour.
Washington State’s paid sick leave law will be expanded to include time off for immigration-related proceedings, starting on July 27, 2025.
In West Virginia, Senate Bill 427 eliminates the requirement that fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds obtain a work permit as a condition of employment. Instead, an employer seeking to hire a teenager must obtain an age certificate verifying the child’s age from the state Division of Labor and the written consent of the child’s parent or guardian.
Next Steps
Employers will need to comply with new laws taking effect in states in which they operate.
Federal Government Announces New Policy on Status Records for International Students
On April 17, 2025, Hunton Immigration and Higher Education attorneys provided a client alert summarizing recent visa revocations and student SEVIS record terminations (e.g., F-1 visa and F-1 student status). This updates the previous client alert, and summarizes important and ongoing changes in federal policy and practices that impact the status of international students studying in the United States. As summarized below, recent developments in a court case related to SEVIS terminations indicate that the federal government, after temporarily reversing some terminations, has revised its criteria for terminating a student’s right to remain in the United States.
First, on April 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in court that the federal government would temporarily restore the previously terminated SEVIS records of thousands of international students. The DOJ read the following statement in court: “ICE is developing a policy that will provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations. Until such a policy is issued, the SEVIS records for plaintiff(s) in this case (and other similarly situated plaintiffs) will remain Active or shall be reactivated if not currently Active . . . .”
This move followed several weeks of lawsuits filed by students and advocacy organizations alleging that the SEVIS record terminations violated the due process and free speech rights of international students, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. As explained in our prior client alert, international students receive a student visa (e.g., an F-1 visa) to study in the United States. Once they have arrived, they are admitted in F-1 student status and tracked in their SEVIS records through the Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The termination of SEVIS records led to questions about the students’ legal status in the United States.
With the federal government’s reversal, students whose SEVIS records were terminated should have been restored to active student status. Many institutions saw these changes occur from April 25 through April 27, 2025 in their checks of the SEVIS database and notified their affected international students accordingly.
Three days later, on April 28, what appears to be a draft of the new policy for SEVIS record terminations was provided in a court filing on April 28The message, was dated April 26, 2025 and addressed to all SEVP personnel (the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, run through the Department of Homeland Security), and states that ICE retains the authority to terminate students’ SEVIS records for a broad variety of reasons. The listed reasons included those previously viewed as standard and three significant additions:
Exceeded unemployment time;
Change of status or gap in status; or
S. Department of State visa revocation “effective immediately.”
The message indicates a change to the processes for changing students’ immigration status records in SEVIS and represents a departure from previous policies in several important ways. The message states that evidence of an international student’s failure to comply alone will be the standard used to justify future SEVIS status terminations, rather than the higher standards of “substantial evidence,” “proof,” or the standard required for immigration removal proceedings, “clear and convincing evidence”.
The message also indicated that ICE intends to terminate students’ SEVIS records whenever the Department of State revokes an international student’s visa, followed by initiating removal proceedings. This means that SEVIS records may appear as terminated before a student’s status has been terminated in removal proceedings.
The message did not refer to any change in the federal government’s practice of not notifying students of their SEVIS record terminations. Therefore, an international student may still have their F-1 status terminated in SEVIS without notice to them or their university.
Key Takeaways
International student issues remain a closely-watched topic for higher-education institutions, and we continue to recommend clients collaborate closely with outside legal counsel and their international student offices to keep abreast of the latest legal developments and ensure their ongoing compliance.
In particular, colleges and universities should ensure that they are:
Regularly checking SEVIS to determine if any of their students’ F-1 status has been terminated (or restored to Active) and communicate any developments to the affected students as soon as possible.
Preparing for possible federal immigration enforcement activity on or around campus by understanding the types of requests for information federal agencies might make and best practices to meet cooperation obligations under federal and state law.
Developing and implementing a plan to address student and campus community concerns, as well as any concerns from the local community. In addition to planning for internal and external communications, expect that individual students may file their own lawsuits in court related to federal action taken on their student visa or SEVIS record.
We at Hunton have resources to advise higher education institutions on their particular immigration needs. We have developed training and guidance designed to assist public safety officers and administrators if federal agencies come to campus, and we can provide guidance and assistance in advising international students and scholars offices, HR and administrators on visa revocations and status terminations for students, researchers faculty, and staff.
Top 10 Labor, Employment, and OSHA Trends for 2025
As we approach midyear, the ArentFox Schiff Labor, Employment & OSHA team highlights some of the most pressing legal issues facing employers this year, including artificial intelligence (AI) regulation at the state level, reshaping of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), continuing expansion of state paid family and medical leave laws, challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, and changes to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance and enforcement.
1. History in the Making: The State of the NLRB Under the New Administration
Like most government agencies, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has not escaped the Trump Administration’s efforts to reshape the federal government and replace officials in positions of power. Since assuming office, President Trump has discharged former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and removed NLRB panel member Gwynne Wilcox.
While replacement of Abruzzo was expected, the president’s decision to remove Wilcox surprised many and introduced legal challenges, both at the NLRB and in court:
Removing Wilcox on January 27 left the NLRB with only two of its typical five members and without a quorum to decide the cases pending before it.
On March 6, a DC District Court ordered Wilcox’s temporary reinstatement based upon a 90-year-old US Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. US — a case that prohibited then-president Franklin D. Roosevelt from removing members of independent agency panels.
Upon appeal, on March 28, a three-member panel of the DC Circuit stayed Wilcox’s reinstatement, removing her once more. The concurring judges agreed that the 2020 Supreme Court decision, Seila Law v. CFPB, narrowed the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor, and empowered the president to fire members of independent, multi-member agency panels that wield “substantial executive power.”
On April 7, a full en banc panel reversed the DC Circuit decision by a 7-4 margin and ordered Wilcox back to work.
On April 9, Chief Justice Roberts, as circuit justice for the DC Circuit, reversed the April 7 decision and reinstated Wilcox’s removal pending full resolution of the appeal by the DC Circuit. Oral argument on the merits was scheduled for May 16.
The question at present is not if the Wilcox case will go to the Supreme Court, but when. The presumptive legal protections restricting President Trump’s removal powers are about to be put to the test. When Wilcox’s case makes its way to the Supreme Court, Humphrey’s Executor will be pinned against recent decisions, like Seila Law, which may result in a more expansive view of the president’s power. In the short-term, Chief Justice Roberts has once more neutered the NLRB; in the long term, the order implicates the scope of a president’s ability to control agency leadership as a matter of law.
As to the General Counsel (GC) position, on March 25, President Trump nominated Crystal Carey, a partner at management-side law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, to serve as the new NLRB GC. Carey’s nomination follows rescissions by Acting GC William Cowen of more than 25 “guidance” memoranda previously issued by Abruzzo, suggesting an NLRB less likely to issue decisions unfavorable to employers, and more permissibility in the use of non-competition, confidentiality, and non-disparagement provisions in agreements with nonsupervisory employees.
2. Noncompete Landscape
In recent years, noncompetes have been the subject of significant attention at both the state and federal level. Perhaps most notably, in April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to adopt a final rule that would have essentially banned noncompete agreements for workers in the United States by prohibiting employers from entering into noncompete agreements with workers and rendering prior noncompetes unenforceable, except for a narrowly defined category of “senior executives.” The final rule was immediately challenged in multiple lawsuits. On August 20, 2024, on the eve of the effective date of the ban, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered an injunction in one such lawsuit, holding that the FTC lacked statutory authority to create the rule and setting it aside on a nationwide basis.
With the new Administration, Andrew Ferguson replaced Lina Khan as FTC chair. Ferguson voted against the noncompete ban in April 2024 and has opted not to pursue the appeal of the Texas injunction. However, while he indicated that a ban was not the correct approach, Ferguson has also stated that the FTC will continue to exercise its enforcement power against employers who attempt to deploy overbroad noncompetes, particularly for low wage workers. To that end, Ferguson recently announced the formation of a Joint Labor Task Force which will “scrutinize non-compete agreements, deceptive job advertisements, wage-fixing schemes, unlawful coordination on DEI employment metrics, and much more.”
As it stands now, noncompetes continue to be governed by a patchwork of state legislation ranging from bans with very limited exceptions (in California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and most recently, Minnesota), to restrictions on use with low wage workers (in, for example, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Illinois), to restrictions on how and when they may be presented to employees (in, for example, Colorado, Maine, Oregon and Washington). This approach presents challenges to employers who are dealing with an increasingly mobile workforce.
Employers should revisit their agreements to ensure maximum enforceability. In many instances, specific forms or addenda will be required to comply with the various state requirements. Employers should also consider either relying on other types of restrictive covenants or, at a minimum, using other restrictive covenants simultaneously with noncompetes, including non-disclosure, non-solicitation, or no hire provisions, as appropriate. Finally, to create a secondary guardrail for the protection of trade secrets and confidential information, employers should create effective trade secret protection protocols and engage in regular monitoring and auditing of their application.
3. AI and Employment Laws: What Employers Should Know
For employers, the AI landscape continues to evolve on both the federal and state level. On inauguration day, President Trump immediately rescinded President Biden’s 2023 Executive Order (EO) No. 14110 on AI, which had directed federal agencies to use regulatory and enforcement tools to address safety, privacy, and discrimination concerns related to AI. After Commissioner Lucas became acting chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), two AI-related documents were removed from the EEOC’s website: (1) the May 2023 technical assistance document on AI compliance issues under Title VII, which cautioned employers to assess AI tools for potential adverse impacts on any group protected by Title VII and (2) the May 2022 technical assistance document that warned of potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act through AI tools that impermissibly consider or screen for disabilities of applicants. Similarly, the US Department of Labor (DOL) noted on its website that its October 2024 Artificial Intelligence Best Practices guidance might be outdated or not reflective of current policies.
Despite these changes, employers may still be held liable for their use of AI tools in hiring or workplace decision-making when such use violates federal anti-discrimination laws. This is true even when a third-party vendor created the AI tool. As such, employers should monitor and audit their use of AI tools and review their agreements with vendors of AI tools to ensure issues of transparency and liability are addressed.
In contrast to the activity at the federal level, the states have begun to regulate AI in the employment context. Colorado, Illinois, and New York City have laws on the books that offer varying levels of protections against AI-related discrimination to applicants and/or employees. As we approach mid-year, at least 25 other states have already introduced legislation that would regulate the use of AI in the employment setting.
In these changing times, employers should remain vigilant and current on their compliance with applicable and emerging state laws regarding the use of AI. AI policies and use of AI tools should be routinely monitored and audited, with particular focus on transparency, privacy, and discrimination concerns. Human resources personnel and leadership should be trained on appropriate use of AI technologies in the workplace to avoid misuse and mitigate risk.
4. Continued Expansion of State Paid Family and Medical Leave Laws
The landscape of paid family and medical leave laws in the United States is rapidly evolving, with states increasingly adopting comprehensive benefits for employees. As these laws expand, they reflect a growing recognition of the importance of supporting workers during critical life events, such as personal medical issues, the birth or adoption of a child, and caring for family members. This shift not only enhances employee well-being but also promotes a more inclusive and supportive work environment. Legislation for paid family and medical leave has been proposed in multiple states, including Arizona, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina.
In alignment with the federal unpaid leave program, most states prioritize personal medical leave, followed by leave for caring for a new child or family member. While the Family and Medical Leave Act offers unpaid leave, many states are now mandating paid options, funded through taxes collected from employees and employers. While several states have already enacted paid family and medical leave legislation, others, such as Arizona, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina, have proposed similar measures.
Recent State Developments
Alaska, Missouri, and Nebraska: Beginning this year, Missouri (May 1), Alaska (July 1), and Nebraska (October 1) will require paid sick leave accrual of one hour for every 30 hours worked, with annual use caps of 40 hours for small employers and 56 hours for larger employers. All three states permit employers to satisfy obligations through compliant paid time off policies, and each contains industry or size-based nuances that warrant close review and continued monitoring for legislative amendments before the effective dates.
Georgia: Effective July 1, 2024, Georgia has doubled paid parental leave for educators and state employees to six weeks, extending eligibility to charter school employees.
New York: Effective January 1, 2025, New York required all private-sector employers to provide their employees 20 hours of paid prenatal leave each year, in addition to existing sick leave requirements.
Washington: Effective January 1, 2025, Washington expanded the circumstances under which employees can take paid sick leave and broadened the definition of family members for sick leave purposes.
Minnesota: Minnesota’s paid family and medical leave programs are scheduled to launch on January 1, 2026.
Employers, particularly those operating in multiple states, must stay informed about these evolving laws. It is crucial to review specific state requirements and monitor potential legislative amendments before implementation to ensure compliance.
5. Beat the Heat – An Employer’s Duty to Ensure a Workplace Safe From Heat-Related Hazards
As we approach the summer months, employers with employees who work outside or in higher temperatures should be aware of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) increasing focus over the past several years on heat-related injuries and illnesses.
Since 2022, OSHA has had a national emphasis program (NEP) in place as a part of which the agency has prioritized enforcement activities focused on indoor and outdoor heat-related hazards. Although that NEP expires this year, in 2024, OSHA introduced a new proposed rule that would establish a nationwide standard for addressing the hazards of excessive heat in the workplace. Specifically, that rule would require employers to develop a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan to address heat-related hazards. The rule also set an “initial heat trigger” at a heat index of 80ºF, at which threshold employers must provide employees with water and break areas, and a “high heat trigger” at 90ºF, which would require employers to monitor for signs of heat illness and provide mandatory 15-minute breaks every two hours. Although the fate of OSHA’s proposed rule is unclear following the change in Administration, OSHA can continue to issue citations for heat-related hazards under the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
OSHA state plans have also taken steps to address heat-related hazards. In 2024, California OSHA issued a new final rule addressing both indoor and outdoor workplaces with heat-related hazards that imposes safety requirements if employees are exposed to temperatures at 82ºF or higher, with additional elevated requirements where employees are exposed to temperatures at 87ºF or higher. Similarly, earlier this month, New Mexico OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for its own heat illness prevention rule.
Employers whose employees may be exposed to high temperatures this summer should take steps to ensure that they have measures in place to address the risks associated with heat.
6. Pay Transparency Momentum Continues
In 2024, the momentum for pay transparency legislation has continued to build across the United States. As more states enact these laws, with additional legislation anticipated this year, multistate employers face the complex challenge of aligning their job postings and promotional practices with a patchwork of state-specific requirements. Washington, DC, and Hawaii passed pay transparency legislation that went into effect in 2024. Additionally, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont passed legislation in 2024 which is expected to go into effect this year.
Pay transparency laws typically require employers to disclose the wages or wage range for a particular position to prospective and/or current employees. Challenges arise when a multistate employer is forced to comply with varying state pay transparency laws. Differences in each state’s legislation include who is covered, the timing and circumstances in which pay information must be disclosed, and the specific parties to whom this information must be shared. Because the application of these laws can differ greatly, states like Colorado have provided explicit guidance to address these ambiguities. For example, Colorado’s guidance clarifies that postings for remote positions, that can be performed anywhere, are subject to the requirements in Colorado’s pay transparency law, the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, even if the posting explicitly excludes Colorado applicants.
Additionally, some states’ legislation may include wage reporting obligations for covered employers. For example, California and Massachusetts’ pay transparency laws include reporting requirements for certain employers with over 100 employees. Notably, in Massachusetts, the first round of EEO-1, EEO-3, and EEO-5 reporting was due on February 1.
The extent of liability that an employer may face for non-compliance can vary based on the jurisdiction. While some states like Massachusetts assert incremental fines against liable employers, California provides a private right of action for aggrieved parties. Employers should review both their external and internal facing job postings to ensure that they comply with these varying state and local laws. For additional details, please refer to our recent alert.
7. The Current State of DEI
Diversity, equity, and enclusion (DEI) initiatives are significantly scrutinized under the new Administration. Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed EO 14173, aimed at ending what the EO describes as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences” under the guise of DEI. EO 14173 creates liability for DEI programs in several notable ways:
It directs the Attorney General to produce a report recommending enforcement strategies to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI, in the private sector, including identifying potential civil investigation targets among publicly traded corporations, nonprofits, and other entities.
It also sets up federal contractors for potential liability under the False Claims Act by requiring them to certify that they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI” that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. A contractor that falsely certifies compliance can face significant penalties under an action brought by the government or a private individual in a qui tam lawsuit.
While there has been significant litigation challenging the EO, contractors with current, pending, or future contracts should expect to receive anti-DEI certifications in their federal contracts soon.
Beyond the EO, the Administration has made clear its intent to investigate and pursue enforcement against DEI in the private sector. The Attorney General issued a memorandum instructing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI programs. The EEOC’s Acting Chair also sent investigation letters to law firms seeking information about their DEI activities.
The Administration has produced some guidance to help employers identify what are considered unlawful DEI practices. The EEOC and DOJ released a joint guidance, and the EEOC released its own technical assistance document, stating that under Title VII, DEI programs may be unlawful if they involve employment actions motivated by a protected characteristic, and that customer preferences or the perceived operational benefits of a diverse workforce are not a defense to race- or sex-motivated decision making. The documents also assert that practices like limiting access to employee clubs or resource groups, or certain workplace programming and trainings, can run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws.
Employers may be motivated to eliminate DEI-type practices altogether, but many remain lawful and important for ensuring equal employment opportunity. Instead of painting with a broad brush, all employers (and particularly federal contractors) should review their DEI programs and initiatives with counsel for compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
8. Immigration Policy Developments
Consistent with his campaign agenda, President Trump has significantly increased immigration investigation efforts since taking over the White House. Given the president’s explicit focus on immigration compliance and enforcement, employers across all industries should expect increased workplace enforcement actions, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and unannounced immigration workplace investigations, and more frequent governmental I-9 audits. In addition, employers should be aware that the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cards for foreign nationals here through numerous Temporary Protected Status and parole programs have been shortened or terminated, which means that employers shroud revise the expiration dates on their I-9’s and obtain new work authorization documents in a timely manner in order to continue to employ them. Further by increasing scrutiny on those seeking to enter the United States, President Trump has made international travel by foreign nationals riskier and paved the way to implement travel bans. In addition, he has started revoking visas from nationals from selection countries. Thus, employers should consult their immigration counsel to see if their employees’ EAD cards and/or work or travel authorization is impacted.
Unannounced Workplace Investigations and Raids
Employers should be aware that government officials may appear without notice at a workplace and demand access to personnel and business documents, including conducting private discussions with employees. Employers should prepare for such visits and equip the first point-of-contact at each entry with information about what to do.
Federal Form I-9
In response to President Trump’s heightened focus on immigration investigations, employers should organize their I-9 records by conducting a proactive internal I-9 audit to correct any and all deficiencies, to the extent feasible. Notably, employers who choose to proactively correct their I-9 records may take advantage of the “good faith compliance” defense under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Such remedial efforts can be taken into consideration during a governmental audit or inspection, and the employer may receive credit for those corrections, thereby mitigating potential penalties.
9. Independent Contractor/Joint Employer Rules Under the New Administration
On May 1, the DOL announced through a Field Assistance Bulletin that it will no longer enforce and may rescind President Biden’s 2024 independent contractor rule. Instead, the DOL will evaluate whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act using the traditional “economic realities” test, with emphasis on the following significant factors:
The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal’s business.
The permanency of the relationship.
The amount of the alleged contractor’s investment in facilities and equipment.
The nature and degree of control by the principal.
The alleged contractor’s opportunities for profit and loss.
The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor
The 2024 Rule rescinded the first Trump Administration’s more lenient rules which made it easier for businesses to determine joint employer status and classify workers as independent contractors. For the purpose of private litigation, the Bulletin emphasized that the 2024 Rule remains in effect. However, while the DOL has not yet attempted to return to the first Trump Administration’s rules, it indicated that it is “currently reviewing and developing the appropriate standard.”
There are still a number of lawsuits pending in federal courts challenging the 2024 Rule, but the DOL has sought to put the litigation on hold while it decides whether to reconsider or rescind the regulation.
While it is likely the new Trump Administration’s DOL will not defend the 2024 Rule, and considering Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overturning the Chevron doctrine and holding that courts do not have to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law), employers should remain cautious when analyzing joint employer status and classifying independent contractors, particularly in states which utilize the ABC Test.
10. Discrimination Trends
The discrimination landscape is undergoing significant changes as the Trump Administration issues EOs and guidance, while the Supreme Court continues its 2024-2025 term. Two key areas to watch are the evolving perspectives on gender identity discrimination and reverse discrimination.
Gender Identity
The Supreme Court has long held that discrimination based on sex stereotyping is impermissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was established in the 1989 case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, where the Court ruled that discrimination against an employee due to nonconformity to gender expectations constitutes sex discrimination. In 2020, the Court reaffirmed this stance in Bostock v. Clayton County, clarifying that discrimination against individuals for being homosexual or transgender inherently involves sex discrimination.
However, on January 20, President Trump issued an EO titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This EO redefined sex as strictly biological, excluding gender identity from its definition. This move starkly contrasts with the Supreme Court’s precedents.
Following this EO, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced a shift in the agency’s focus, aiming to protect women from sex-based discrimination by reversing policies related to gender identity. Changes include disabling the agency’s “pronoun app,” removing non-binary gender markers from discrimination charge forms, and eliminating materials promoting gender ideology from EEOC resources. The EEOC has also sought to dismiss cases involving gender identity discrimination claims.
Despite these administrative changes, the precedents set by Price Waterhouse and Bostock remain valid law. The courts will need to navigate the tension between federal guidance and established Supreme Court rulings, which could lead to significant legal challenges and interpretations.
Reverse Discrimination
In five federal circuits, reverse discrimination claims — those brought by members of majority groups — require plaintiffs to meet a heightened pleading standard, under which plaintiffs must establish “background circumstances” demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group.
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case involving a woman who claimed she was discriminated against for being heterosexual. Marlean Ames alleged she was denied a promotion and demoted in favor of her gay colleagues. The Sixth Circuit applied the heightened standard and ruled against Ames. The Supreme Court is now considering whether plaintiffs must prove such “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. If the Court determines no such proof is required, the legal landscape of reverse discrimination will shift, making it easier for individuals to bring such reverse discrimination claims.
In addition, the EEOC has announced policies to defend and protect members of majority groups. For instance, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced the EEOC will protect “American workers” from anti-American national origin discrimination. Lucas stated the EEOC “is putting employers and other covered entities on notice: … The EEOC is here to protect all workers from unlawful national origin discrimination, including American workers.”
Saisruthi Paspulati , Trevor M. Jorgensen , Ari Asher , Kimia Pourshadi , and Roxana Bokaei also contributed to this article.
H-1B Lottery Registrations Decline to Four-Year Low
For the second consecutive year, there has been a decline in H-1B lottery registrations according to data published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):
Employers submitted approximately 344,000 registrations this year, down 26 percent from last year and the lowest number of registrations in four years.
The number of workers with multiple registrations also declined for the second year in a row.
In fiscal year 2024, H-1B lottery registrations hit an all-time high with more than 758,000 registrations, including more than 350,000 workers with multiple registrations. USCIS identified a significant number of unlawful entries by companies trying to game the system.
In response, USCIS revamped its process to select by worker rather than by registration and thereby removed any advantage gained by workers who have multiple registrations. In fiscal year 2025, the number of workers with multiple registrations dropped to 47,314 or about 10 percent of total registrations, and for fiscal year 2026 it dropped to 7,828 or about two percent of the total registrations.
The number of unique employers increased this year, with 57,600 compared to 52,700 last year.
USCIS increased the registration fee from $10 to $215, generating nearly $74 million in registration fees this year.
June 2025 Visa Bulletin Shows Advancement for EB-2 and EB-3 Worldwide and China
The June 2025 Visa Bulletin shows some advancement in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for all countries except for India. In addition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will accept employment-based adjustment-of-status applications from foreign nationals with a priority date that is earlier than the final action dates listed in the June 2025 Visa Bulletin.
Quick Hits
The June 2025 Visa Bulletin shows some forward movement for EB-2 and EB-3 for all countries of chargeability except India.
The June 2025 Visa Bulletin shows no change for all employment-based final action dates for India from the May 2025 Visa Bulletin.
USCIS will honor final action dates for I-485 adjustment-of-status applications filed in June 2025.
Employment-based
All ChargeabilityAreas ExceptThose Listed
CHINA-mainlandborn
INDIA
MEXICO
PHILIPPINES
1st
C
08NOV22
15FEB22
C
C
2nd
15OCT23
01DEC20
01JAN13
15OCT23
15OCT23
3rd
08FEB23
22NOV20
15APR13
08FEB23
08FEB23
Other Workers
22JUN21
01APR17
15APR13
22JUN21
22JUN21
4th
U
U
U
U
U
Certain Religious Workers
U
U
U
U
U
5th Unreserved(including C5, T5, I5, R5, NU, RU)
C
22JAN14
01MAY19
C
C
5th Set Aside:Rural (20%, including NR, RR)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:High Unemployment (10%, including NH, RH)
C
C
C
C
C
5th Set Aside:Infrastructure (2%, including RI)
C
C
C
C
C
Source: U.S. Department of State, June 2025 Visa Bulletin, Final Action Dates Chart
Key Takeaways
According to the June 2025 Visa Bulletin:
EB-1: India remains at February 15, 2022, and China remains at November 8, 2022 (with no change from the May 2025 Visa Bulletin).
EB-2: India remains at January 1, 2013, while China advances by two months to December 1, 2020. All other countries advance by almost four months to October 15, 2023.
EB-3 Professionals and Skilled Workers: India remains at April 15, 2013, and China advances by three weeks to November 22, 2020. All other countries advance by five weeks to February 8, 2023.
Big Law Redefined: Immigration Insights Episode 13 | The EB-5 Landscape: The Crucial Role of Broker-Dealers in Immigration Investments [Podcast]
In this episode of the Immigration Insights series on Greenberg Traurig’s Big Law Redefined podcast, host Kate Kalmykov, co-chair of GT’s Global Immigration and Compliance Practice, is joined by broker-dealer and EB-5 expert Marko Issever.
Together, they delve into the pivotal role broker-dealers play in EB-5 offerings, guiding investors and projects in navigating the complex interplay of immigration, securities laws, and market dynamics.
Marko shares his decade-long experience in the EB-5 industry, emphasizing the importance of due diligence, unbiased project evaluation, and the evolving trends in investor priorities, including the rise of U.S.-based EB-5 investors.
The conversation also touches on the challenges developers face when entering the EB-5 market, the impact of regulatory changes, and the crucial collaboration between immigration attorneys and broker-dealers to ensure successful outcomes for EB-5 investors.
Whether you’re an investor, developer, or immigration professional, this episode offers insights into the dynamic EB-5 space.
June 2025 Visa Bulletin – State Department Hits Pause on India and Play on China and Rest of World
The State Department has published the June Visa Bulletin. In a reversal from May, which saw virtually no advances, priority dates do move forward in two categories for China and three for all other countries, although India remains stagnant.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you are new to these blog posts. If you are familiar with the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the U.S. Department of State, n collaboration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If your priority date (that is, the date you were placed on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, that means a visa number is available for you that month. That, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you are applying at a U.S. embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you are applying with USCIS). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, it means the embassy or USCIS can now approve your application because a visa number is again available.
Now for the June Visa Bulletin:
As noted above, no changes from May for India:
EB-1 halts at February 15, 2022
EB-2 freezes at January 1, 2013
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers pause at April 15, 2013
Two categories move forward for China:
EB-1 halts at November 8, 2022
EB-2 advances 2 months to December 1, 2020
EB-3 Professionals advances 3 weeks to at November 22, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stalls at April 1, 2017
All Other Countries experiences the most forward movement:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances almost 4 months to October 15, 2023
EB-3 Professionals advances more than 1 month to February 8, 2023
EB-3 Other Workers advances 1 month to June 22, 2021
NOTE: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in June based on Final Action Dates, not the more favorable Dates for Filing chart.
Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela
On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen’s March 31 order halting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) rescission of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans.
Under the rescission, announced in a Federal Register Notice on Feb. 5, 2025, Venezuelans who registered for TPS under former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ October 3, 2023, designation of Venezuela for TPS, would have lost their TPS-based work authorizations on April 2, 2025, while TPS itself would have expired on April 7, 2025.
While the language of the Federal Register Notice indicates that Venezuelan TPS holders who registered under the 2023 designation will no longer be work authorized, the Supreme Court specifically noted that its Miscellaneous Order (05/19/2025) does not preclude challenges to any DHS actions that seek to invalidate TPS documents, including work authorizations, with an Oct. 3, 2026, expiration date.
DHS has not yet provided guidance regarding the status of TPS holders who registered under the Oct. 3, 2023, designation and remained employed in the United States beyond April 2, 2025.
DHS has also not provided guidance on the status of TPS holders who registered under the initial May 9, 2021, Venezuela TPS designation. Under the Federal Register Notice, the TPS of individuals who registered under the 2021 designation expires Sep. 10, 2025.
Representatives Maria Salazar (R-FL) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) recently introduced the bipartisan Venezuela TPS Act of 2025, which, if enacted, would provide an 18-month extension of TPS, and a renewal option, for all Venezuelans currently in the United States.