J-1 Visa Holders: Options and Alternatives to the H-1B [Video]
Highlights
In today’s competitive immigration landscape, the H-1B visa often dominates conversations around employment-based pathways. However, the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program offers a dynamic and underutilized avenue for international professionals to gain meaningful U.S. experience, build skills, and contribute to global workforce development.
This informative session is designed specifically for U.S. immigration attorneys seeking to expand their strategic toolkit for advising clients. We’ll explore how the J-1 visa can serve as a high-impact option for short-term professional development, without positioning it as a mere alternative to the H-1B. Our Barnes & Thornburg attorneys are joined by Tania Carswell, Director of Program Development at J-1 Visa Exchanges for this conversation.
Key topics include:
How the J-1 visa supports workforce development and global mobility goals
Structuring J-1 programs to align with client objectives and compliance requirements
Understanding the nuances of key J-1 categories:
J-1 Professional Trainees
J-1 Summer Work/Travel Participants
J-1 Interns and Trainees in Business, Hospitality, Tourism, Management, and Related Fields
Discover how the J-1 visa can be integrated into a broader immigration strategy, empowering international talent to gain valuable U.S. experience, while opening doors to future opportunities. This session is not about replacing the H-1B—it’s about elevating the conversation.
Immediate EB-5 Filing Fees Reversion
In a significant win for immigrant investors, the substantial 2024 fee increases decided and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were successfully challenged. A federal judge ruled on November 12 that these fee hikes violated legal requirements and cannot be enforced unless a new, compliant rule is published.
The lawsuit, Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al., was filed in March 2024. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney found that USCIS’s fee increases, effective April 1, 2024, were inconsistent with both the Administrative Procedure Act and the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. The agency had failed to conduct a required fee study before implementing these substantial hikes, including raising the Form I-956F filing fee from $17,795 to $47,695, a 168% increase.
While the current ruling offers significant relief to project sponsors and real estate developers, it is important to note that the return to the previous fee schedule may be temporary. DHS has released a proposed fee adjustment based on a study completed in February 2025, and this proposal is open for public comment until December 22, 2025. DHS must complete its review and issue a final rule before any new changes can take effect, meaning the lower filing fees should remain in place at least through the end of 2025. As it stands, the Form I-956F filing fees have reverted to pre-April 2024 levels of $17,795, making this an optimal time for investors (developers) to file their applications.
Current and Proposed Fee Levels
Form
Restored Fee (Now in Effect)
April 2024 Fee (Stayed)
Proposed Fee (Dec 2025)
I-526 / I-526E (Standalone/Regional Center)
$3,675
$11,160
$9,625
I-829 (Petition to Remove Conditions)
$3,750
$9,525
$7,860
I-956 (Regional Center Designation)
$17,795
$47,695
$28,895
I-956F (Investment Approval)
$17,795
$47,695
$29,935
I-956G (Annual Statement)
$3,035
$4,470
$2,740
The Workplace Know Your Rights Act- California Mandates New Annual Notice To Employees
On October 12, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed S.B. 294, the “Workplace Know Your Rights Act” (the “Act”). In response to recent immigration enforcement actions, the Act aims to educate workers on their civil rights in the workplace.
The Act sets forth two requirements.
First, it requires California employers to provide a stand-alone written notice to new hires and current employees advising them of their constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement. Employers have until February 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, to provide the written notice to all employees. Among other requirements, the notice must include a description of worker’s compensation benefits, an explanation of an employee’s protections against unfair immigration-related practices, a statement addressing the right to organize a union, and a summary of constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement at work. The California Labor Commissioner will post a template notice on its website by January 1, 2026.
Second, the Act requires employers to notify an employee’s designated person in the event that the employee is arrested or detained at the worksite or in the performance of job duties away from the worksite. Employers have until March 30, 2026 to provide employees with the opportunity to identify a designated contact person for purposes of complying with the Act.
Employers should take notice that the Act authorizes the Labor Commissioner to impose a steep penalty between $500-$10,000 per employee for an employer’s noncompliance. It also prohibits retaliation against an employee who seeks enforcement of the employer’s obligations under the Act.
In light of these new requirements, employers should monitor the Labor Commissioner’s website for the template notice, make necessary plans to distribute the written notice to all employees by February 1, 2026 (and annually thereafter), and develop an implementation plan for the designated contact feature.
After the Shutdown
As Congress ends the seven-week federal government shutdown, it is worth looking at what policy debates lie ahead. Here are several items awaiting Congress that may receive immediate attention, as well as broader issues that may receive attention in 2026.
Possible Consideration Before the End of 2025
Discretionary Program Funding. The continuing resolution (CR) (H.R. 5371) to end the shutdown and extend discretionary funding through Jan. 30 also included full year funding for three appropriations bills (Agriculture-FDA; Legislative Branch; and Military Construction-VA). Senate leaders are hoping to immediately turn their attention to the remaining nine appropriations bills, packaging as many as are ready into a second “minibus” package. Initial reports indicate that the next appropriations measure might include up to four bills (Defense; Commerce-Justice-Science; Labor-HHS-Education; and Transportation-HUD) and Senate debate on the bills may begin this week. Both the House and Senate are expected to spend significant floor time on appropriations bills between now and the end of January.
NDAA. The House passed its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act on Sept. 9 by a 231-196 vote, while the Senate passed its version on Oct. 9, 77-20. The Senate legislation authorizes $913.9 billion in spending, $31.3 billion more than the House bill authorized. In addition to resolving spending levels, the two chambers must address several key policy differences. Informal discussions are well underway among staff for the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The “big four” leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (Sens. Wicker (R-MS) and Reed (D-RI), and Reps. Rogers (R-AL) and Smith (D-WA)) have expressed optimism that the NDAA may pass both chambers in December.
Affordable Care Act Subsidies. In 2021, Congress expanded ACA premium subsidies by removing the household income eligibility cap (previously 400% of the poverty level) and putting into place an overall 8.5% income cap on the amount any individual or family would be required to pay in premiums. These enhanced premium subsidies expire at the end of 2025, and their renewal was a major demand of Democrats during the government shutdown. There is some Republican support for modifying and extending the premium subsidies, but an agreement on the details has not been achieved. Program recipients have received notice of increased costs for renewal of their ACA health plans. Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) has promised a vote on a Democratic proposal no later than the second week of December. However, House Speaker Johnson (R-LA) has not committed to a vote on the subsidies.
Russia Sanctions. There are 85 Senate cosponsors of legislation (S. 1241) that imposes sweeping sanctions on several entities affiliated with or doing business with Russia. The legislation as introduced would also impose 500% “secondary” sanctions on imports of goods and services from countries that purchase Russian-origin oil, uranium, or petroleum products, unless the President grants a waiver.. It may be considered before the end of the year after the White House provides input. The Senate may also consider proposals designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism (S. 2978) and freeing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s use (S. 2918).
Extension of Expiring Programs. Several short-term extensions were provided in the CR lasting through Jan. 30, including programs relating to healthcare (such as Medicare telehealth authority) and veterans programs. Congress may seek to extend them for the full fiscal year if other appropriations bills are packaged together in December. Other programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program expired on Sept. 30 and must be addressed.
2026 Priorities
Highway Bill. Prior to the shutdown, House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) had expressed optimism about completing a committee markup of surface transportation reauthorization bill this year, but that timeline has slipped. Senate Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) will also make this a high priority for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in 2026. The current authorization provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 expires in September 2026.
Permitting Reform. Significant legislative efforts are ongoing to expedite federal permitting, as growing demand for electricity, data centers, artificial intelligence capabilities, and transmission lines will continue to increase. Permitting reforms may advance in both the energy and broader infrastructure contexts. Key proposals include the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898, which passed the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee in June on a 34-30 vote), and bipartisan efforts such as the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), the House Problem Solvers Caucus framework released in September, and negotiations involving Sens. Capito (R-WV) and Whitehouse (D-RI).
Tariffs. The Supreme Court may issue a ruling on the legality of imposing tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act in the very near future. If the Court rules against the Trump Administration, it is possible that the President would seek clarifying legislation from Congress. The Court may potentially invalidate all or some reciprocal (country-specific) tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs (affecting China, Canada, and Mexico). If so, President Trump may invoke new authority, such as section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose short-term tariffs, but he may also seek additional legislative authority to support longer-term policy.
Healthcare / PBMs / Price Transparency. Efforts to extend the ACA premium subsidies have generated a new focus on broader healthcare reform efforts, especially in the Senate. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and other Republican Senators are considering alternatives to extending the premium subsidies, including enhanced flexible spending account contributions. These proposals, however, have not generated bipartisan support. In addition, in 2026 Congress may revisit proposals to impose new regulations on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and increase healthcare price transparency. Last December Congress came close to passing these reforms as part of the CR and attempted again to include such reforms in the reconciliation package this past summer. Both efforts were unsuccessful.
Immigration. Immigration legislation is poised to return to the forefront of congressional debate, reflecting a recognition that enforcement alone cannot sustain economic growth. With the border now more secure, attention is shifting toward legal immigration reform — especially as the administration’s rollback of humanitarian protections such as TPS, DACA, and CHNV parole has underscored the need for new, lawful pathways. The Essential Workers for Economic Advancement Act (H.R. 5494), introduced by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), proposes a new H-2C visa to help employers fill long-vacant positions in industries facing persistent labor shortages, complementing his USA Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 5493) to strengthen training and apprenticeship programs. Combined with the Dignity Act, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, and the administration’s rollout of “Gold Card, Corporate Card, and Platinum Status” initiatives for investors and skilled professionals, these efforts signal a bipartisan opening for comprehensive immigration modernization focused on both workforce needs and lawful mobility. We may also see a version of H.R. 2 (the Secure the Border Act, which passed in the previous Congress) introduced as a potential vehicle.
Artificial Intelligence. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) has proposed an “AI Sandbox” under which developers may apply for “temporary relief from regulatory burdens” where federal agencies can grant waivers of up to two years. Earlier this year the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence. The proposal was included in the House-passed version of the budget reconciliation bill but ultimately dropped from the Senate version. Meanwhile, several states have enacted AI-related laws (California, Colorado, New York, Texas, and Utah) that may affect Congressional actions in 2026, imposing regulations relating to discrimination, consumer protection, liability, deepfakes, and music rights. The Trump Administration has moved forward with an “American AI Exports Program” that may require Congressional support.
Cryptocurrency. Although the House passed cryptocurrency reform legislation in July on a 294 to 134 vote (the Digital Assets Market Clarity Act, H.R. 3633), the legislation remains subject to further debate in the Senate. Two Senate committees – Agriculture and Financial Services – have jurisdiction over different aspects of cryptocurrency regulation and must produce a unified product. The Trump Administration will also play a role.
Ex-Im Reauthorization. Congress must reauthorize the Export-Import Bank statute by Sept. 30. The Trump Administration envisions a major role for Ex-Im and other international financing entities in supporting its efforts to export U.S. artificial intelligence products around the world.
CISA Reauthorization. Congress included in the CR an extension of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act and the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration (CISA) administers. The CISA reauthorization extends through Jan. 30. The White House supports a clean, 10-year reauthorization with retroactive protections to reset national cyber visibility and reduce legal risk. The central constraint will remain the Senate Homeland Security Committee, where Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY) has conditioned a long-term renewal on limitations to the agency’s disinformation-related work.
Farm Bill / Farmer Relief. The CR extended several expiring farm bill programs for one year, which takes the pressure off House and Senate Agriculture Committees to produce a new farm bill until later in 2026. Congress has been unable to pass such legislation since 2018. The Trump Administration is also considering delivering payments to farmers impacted by trade through a market facilitation program. Congress may need to get involved if existing authority needs to be enhanced. The CR restored the full $30 billion borrowing cap for the Commodity Credit Corporation, which may provide short-term resources to assist farmers.
Reconciliation / Tax Reform. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has raised the prospect of developing a new reconciliation bill in 2026, which might provide a vehicle for tax, healthcare, and other major reforms. Neither the White House nor House and Senate leaders have yet weighed in on the scope of such potential legislation.
Immigration Enforcement and Personal Injury Litigation: Legal Challenges and Strategic Responses
Immigration enforcement has reached record levels in 2025, creating measurable business disruption for personal injury attorneys nationwide. With over 300,000 deportations, marking the highest pace since 2014, personal injury practices face significant operational challenges that directly impact their bottom line.
These actions create ripple effects throughout case development and firm finances. Immigration related complications extend case resolution periods, forcing firms to carry operational expenses longer while delaying the contingency fee collections they depend on for cash flow. When clients fear deportation, they often abandon cases mid-litigation, leaving attorneys with total revenue loss on what would otherwise be viable claims.
The situation becomes more complex during settlement negotiations. Defense attorneys are increasingly incentivized to exploit immigration concerns to pressure plaintiffs into accepting reduced settlements, knowing that fear can override sound legal strategy.
Meanwhile, the $4.5 billion legal funding market offers minimal specialization for these complex cases, leaving attorneys without the financial support they need to weather extended timelines.
This market disruption also creates strategic opportunities for forward-thinking firms. Attorneys who develop immigration focused capabilities can capture significant market share from competitors who avoid complex cases entirely. Firms are exploring various operational and financial strategies to manage these challenges.
The Current Immigration Enforcement Reality
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) completed 271,484 deportations in 2024, the highest single-year total since 2010. The pace accelerated in 2025, with daily deportation rates reaching 850 people in May compared to 240 per day in 2023. What makes this enforcement different is its broad scope: only around 30 percent of current detainees have criminal convictions, with 70 percent being non-criminal illegal immigrants.
These enforcement initiatives can have a direct impact on personal injury attorneys’ client base. For example, about 30 percent of workers in the construction industry – a group at particularly high risk for injury – are immigrants. Even in sanctuary jurisdictions like California, high numbers of immigrants create community-wide fear that affects case development. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is offering $1,000 and a flight to self-deport as part of voluntary programs to encourage departures. Miami-Dade County has the most pending Immigration Court deportation cases with 147,000.
Immigration enforcement operations now extend into formerly protected “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship, following the early-2025 repeal of previous safeguards. This shift has deepened fear within immigrant communities and may discourage individuals—even those pursuing personal-injury claims—from participating in the legal system.
How Deportation Fears Change Personal Injury Cases
Immigration concerns, particularly fears of deportation among undocumented or non-citizen clients, fundamentally reshape personal injury (PI) litigation. These cases demand unique approaches to client communication, evidence gathering, and defense strategies, as immigration status introduces legal, cultural, and logistical complexities. Attorneys face extended timelines, higher costs, and increased case abandonment, straining contingency fee models.
Understanding these dynamics enables firms to adapt practices, allocate resources effectively, and identify cases needing specialized support to secure fair outcomes.
1. Timeline Extensions Create Cash Flow Problems
Standard personal injury cases typically resolve in 12 to 18 months. Cases involving undocumented immigrants often take 24 to 36 months due to complications like language barriers and documentation issues. With increased immigration enforcement, practitioners should expect even longer lifecycles. This extended timeline strains contingency fee practices, as attorneys must manage higher caseloads longer, increasing overhead costs and delaying revenue.
2. Client Communication Becomes More Complex
Fear makes immigrant clients harder to reach and more likely to relocate without notice, delaying personal injury cases. Professional translation costs $100 to $300 per hour for depositions and court. Document translation runs $0.10 to $0.40 per word. Bilingual staff command 10 to 25 percent salary premiums in competitive markets. These costs may increase as enforcement disincentives immigrant members who regularly perform these functions from participating in litigation.
3. Defense Tactics Specifically Target Immigration Status
Insurance and defense attorneys often calculate future earnings using home country wage rates, not U.S. standards, to reduce payouts. They challenge credibility via tax history and use immigration status threats to pressure immigrants into low settlements, constitutional due process rights and state-specific protections.
4. Evidence Gathering Complications Increase Costs
Immigrant clients often lack pay stubs, medical records, or IDs, requiring costly alternative evidence like affidavits. Medical treatment gaps from deportation fears weaken damage claims. Fearful witnesses in immigrant communities avoid cooperation, delaying cases and increasing attorney time and expenses in personal injury litigation.
5. Case Abandonment Creates Revenue Loss
Deportation fears cause many immigrant clients to abandon viable personal injury cases, leading to complete revenue loss for contingency fee firms that invest significant time and costs. Anxious clients, wary of prolonged exposure to authorities, often demand early settlements, accepting lowball insurance offers that drastically reduce potential payouts and firm profits.
These challenges create a distinct practice environment, requiring attorneys to rethink case management and financial strategies. Firms must invest in bilingual staff, cultural competency training, and trusted community networks to maintain client engagement and counter defense tactics. Partnering with litigation funding providers can offset upfront costs and stabilize cash flow. By anticipating immigration-related hurdles, attorneys can better advocate for clients, ensuring equitable compensation despite systemic barriers.
The Business Impact on Personal Injury Law Firms’ Revenue
Immigration enforcement disrupts personal injury law firms by cutting revenue through case delays, client abandonment, and rushed settlements. These issues challenge contingency fee models and demand creative solutions to maintain financial stability and client trust.
Key Financial and Operational Impacts
Revenue Losses from Abandonment and Settlements: Undocumented immigrant clients often abandon cases due to deportation fears, causing firms to lose potential contingency fees and costs like expert fees or translation expenses. Rushed settlements, driven by client anxiety, further reduce payouts and firm revenue.
Cash Flow Strain from Extended Timelines: Longer case timelines, often 50 percent longer than the standard 12 to 18 months, force firms to cover expenses like staff salaries and office rent while waiting for delayed payouts, which creates significant cash flow challenges.
Strained Vendor Relationships: Financial pressure disrupts timely payments to expert witnesses, medical providers, and court reporters who expect prompt compensation. This strain sometimes leads firms to turn down viable cases they would normally accept, limiting growth.
Increased Staff Turnover and Training Costs: Serving vulnerable undocumented immigrant clients increases burnout, leading to higher staff turnover. Training new staff in cultural competency and bilingual skills adds costs, including salary premiums of 10 to 25 percent in competitive markets.
Rising Insurance Premiums: Complex immigration related cases may increase professional liability insurance premiums due to heightened malpractice risks from intricate legal intersections, adding to firm expenses.
Market Advantages through Community Trust: On the positive side of the ledger, firms that invest in cultural competency and build trust with immigrant communities gain a strong market position. Word-of-mouth referrals in close-knit networks boost caseloads and support long-term growth.
By adopting tailored strategies, firms can navigate these challenges effectively. Litigation funding helps cover upfront costs and stabilize cash flow. Investing in cultural competency training and community engagement builds trust, driving referrals and fostering sustainable growth in immigrant-focused practices. This approach not only mitigates financial losses but also positions firms as leaders in handling immigration impacted cases, distinguishing them from competitors focused solely on standard PI matters.
Current Legal Funding Options Fall Short
The U.S. legal funding industry, valued at $4.5 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $9.7 billion by 2032, offers vital support for personal injury litigants facing high upfront costs. However, most providers deliver generic solutions that overlook immigration specific hurdles, leaving firms serving undocumented clients underserved amid longer case timelines and unique evidentiary challenges. This gap not only limits access to non-recourse advances but also stifles growth in a niche market ripe for specialized innovation.
1. Inadequate Underwriting for Undocumented Clients
Traditional legal funding companies rely on pay stubs, tax returns, employment records, and credit checks to evaluate personal injury cases. Undocumented workers often lack these documents, making it nearly impossible to meet standard criteria. This excludes a vulnerable population needing financial support during prolonged case timelines of 24 to 36 months.
2. Language and Cultural Barriers Restrict Funding Access
While some legal funding companies offer Spanish translation, few provide comprehensive bilingual services for immigrant clients. True cultural competency requires understanding community dynamics, family obligations, and deportation fears that shape decision making. Without tailored support, these barriers limit access to funding for vulnerable populations in personal injury cases.
3. Uniform Pricing Overlooks Immigration Case Risks
Standard 2 to 4 percent monthly interest rates rely on uniform underwriting that ignores the higher risks and extended timelines of immigration affected personal injury cases. This leaves clients with limited funding access and providers missing a profitable market segment that demands specialized, risk adjusted financing solutions.
4. No Immigration Law Expertise Integration
Legal funding companies typically focus purely on case strength without understanding how immigration status affects litigation strategy, settlement timing, and evidence availability. This knowledge gap leads to poor funding decisions and missed opportunities in a growing market.
The combination of these limitations creates a massive underserved market opportunity. Firms serving immigration impacted personal injury cases need funding partners who understand their specific challenges and can provide appropriate solutions.
How Firms Are Responding to These Market Conditions
Personal injury practices serving undocumented immigrant populations are implementing several operational adaptations. Many firms report conducting internal assessments of their current caseloads to identify immigration-related complications and quantify their financial impact. This includes calculating revenue losses from abandoned cases and rushed settlements, as well as evaluating staff capabilities for handling multilingual client communication.
Firms are also restructuring their financial relationships. Some are exploring litigation funding arrangements specifically designed for cases with extended timelines and nontraditional documentation. Others are developing partnerships with immigration attorneys to provide coordinated representation when clients face removal proceedings.
Market positioning has become increasingly important. Successful firms are building referral networks with immigration advocacy organizations and establishing reputations within immigrant communities through cultural competency demonstrations. This word-of-mouth marketing proves particularly effective given the close-knit nature of many immigrant communities.
Conclusion
The intersection of heightened immigration enforcement and personal injury litigation presents complex legal and ethical challenges that demand careful attention from practitioners. While these cases involve extended timelines, communication barriers, and unique evidentiary issues, attorneys have legal and ethical obligations to provide zealous representation regardless of a client’s immigration status.
Several key legal principles remain constant: undocumented plaintiffs retain the right to pursue tort claims in all U.S. jurisdictions; courts have consistently rejected attempts to reduce damages based solely on immigration status in most contexts; and attorney-client privilege protections apply equally to all clients. Practitioners should familiarize themselves with relevant case law in their jurisdiction, particularly decisions addressing damages calculations and evidentiary standards when immigration status is raised as a defense.
Firms handling these cases should consider developing specific protocols: establish relationships with immigration counsel for referrals when clients face removal proceedings; implement cultural competency training for staff to better serve diverse client populations; and create systems to maintain client contact despite increased mobility and communication challenges.
The current enforcement environment makes it critical for personal injury attorneys to understand how immigration issues affect case strategy, settlement negotiations, and client counseling. Those who develop expertise in navigating these complexities will be better positioned to provide effective representation to an underserved client population while maintaining ethical obligations and practice sustainability.
As immigration enforcement policies continue to evolve, personal injury practitioners should monitor developments in both immigration law and tort law to ensure they can competently represent clients at this challenging intersection of legal practice areas.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review (NLR). The NLR does not answer legal questions, nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor. Please see NLR’s terms of use.
Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives – Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories
Since January, there have been almost daily media reports about federal government agents conducting operations intended to sweep up individuals who are in the U.S. illegally. The primary agency responsible for these activities is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “ICE raids,” as they have come to be called, have caused a great deal of confusion and anxiety for health care entities, including clinical laboratories, who struggle to balance cooperation with law enforcement on the one hand, and respecting the right of their employees and patients on the other.
Historically, the concept of a law enforcement “raid” has arisen in the context of search warrants. Search warrants are judge-signed orders that allow agents to enter a particularly designated place to search for and seize a particularly identified thing or things. In the prototypical example of a search warrant raid, multiple dark vans or SUVs pull up in front of the laboratory site, numerous agents in bulletproof vests and jackets emblazoned with “FBI” pour out of those vehicles and rush into the building, causing panic as they charge into offices and storage rooms, grabbing technology and paper. If federal agents appear with a valid warrant, laboratory personnel cannot physically stand in their way. Any obstruction is likely to result in criminal charges.
As a result of policy changes by the new presidential administration, however, the “raid” concept that now comes to mind are “ICE raids.” ICE was created in 2003 in a merging of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Services. ICE is now a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and it has a budget of approximately $8 million and workforce of roughly 20,000 personnel. Its scope of operations includes enforcement of the laws governing immigration, border control, customs, and trade. ICE Within ICE, the unit or “directorate” responsible for the recent “raids” is known as Enforcement and Removal Operations.
It is important to understand that ICE agents are essentially federal police officers. They are not the military operating unrestricted in a war zone. Like FBI agents, their powers are limited by the U.S. Constitution and federal law more generally. ICE agents usually appear with an administrative warrant signed by an immigration judge; these warrants do not grant agents the broad powers of a search warrant. Absent a valid search warrant signed by a United States District Court judge, ICE agents appearing with an administrative warrant or subpoena still generally need the consent of the laboratory to enter into private places to search for and take documents or property—or to seize individual persons. This raises some key questions about circumstances where there is no search warrant involved:
Do we have to let them come into our facilities? ICE agents have the right to enter into any part of a lab’s facility, like a waiting room, that is open to the general public. ICE agents are not, however, authorized to enter into any non-public areas within the facility without permission. Importantly, permission to enter private areas can be expressly given or even implied from circumstances, so it is important that lab personnel understand clearly which areas of the facility are public and which are private. It is critical that personnel know precisely what to say to explicitly decline an ICE agent’s demand to access a non-public area.
Do we have to answer their questions? Although ICE agents are free to ask questions about the lab’s operations, employees, and patients, there is no obligation to answer those questions. Additionally, protected health information (PHI) is protected from disclosure under HIPAA and a number of state laws, just as is personnel information about any of the lab’s employees. Again, it is important that personnel have been instructed how to respectfully decline to answer questions from agents.
Do we have to show them records or give them copies? As with questions seeking information, there is no obligation to produce documents for ICE’s review or seizure. Moreover, documentation with PHI and personnel information should not be made available to government agents without a subpoena or search warrant. Beyond that, when agents on are site, employees should take care not to have electronic or paper document in plain sight where they may be viewed by agents.
Should we physically stop ICE agents who are attempting, without our consent, to enter into a private area in the lab or to take documents or property? No. Any physical interference, particularly physical contact, with an ICE agent is likely to be met with an arrest and ensuing federal criminal charges.
The appearance of federal agents will be a stressful situation for almost all lab personnel. The stakes are high, so it is important to seek guidance from legal counsel in these situations. Nonetheless, it is also worthwhile to consider working with legal counsel to develop in advance a straightforward written policy for employees to reference at the moment ICE arrives on site. Such a policy would be designed to minimize anxiety while ensuring legally appropriate outcomes.
Update to the New $100,000 H-1B Fee- Who is Exempt and Who Must Pay?
One month after issuing a Proclamation entitled “Restrictions on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” that imposed a $100,000 fee for certain H-1B visa petitions, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published clarifying updates that echo similar updates from other agencies. The USCIS update is available HERE under the drop-down “Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.”
The largest clarification is that the fee will not apply to petitions filed as a change of status or extension or amendment of stay for individuals already present in the U.S. That means no F-1 students seeking to change to H-1B status after graduation will be subject to the fee unless they are found to be ineligible for a change of status due to some prior immigration problem (e.g., failure to maintain status). Since the majority of first-time H-1B petitions in each annual lottery are for students, the Proclamation will not have as large an impact as its plain language originally suggested.
This narrowing of the Proclamation’s scope is likely due to the need to base the Proclamation’s legal grounds on the president’s broad powers to control the entry of foreign nationals, and not his more limited ability to control those already within the US.
Relevant points in the USCIS update:
The Proclamation still only applies to H-1B beneficiaries (the employees who will hold H-1B status) who are outside the US and do not have a valid H-1B visa at the time the petition is filed after September 21, 2025.
$100,000 fee applies if:
The petition requests consular notification, port of entry notification, or pre-flight inspection for the beneficiary.
The petition requests a change of status or amendment or extension of stay and USCIS rejects that request and requires the H-1B to be obtained outside the U.S. The rejection could be for various reasons, such as the beneficiary’s failure to maintain valid status inside the US or departure from US before the change, amendment, or extension petition was approved.
$100,000 fee does not apply if:
The beneficiary already holds an H-1B visa or status.
The petition was filed before September 21, 2025.
The beneficiary receives approval of an H-1B petition filed as a change of status or amendment or extension of stay, even if filed on or after September 21, 2025. This includes beneficiaries of such approved petitions that later leave the US to obtain a visa stamp in their passport based on the underlying approved petition.
USCIS provides a link and instructions on how to pay the $100,000 fee.
Exceptions to the $100,000 fee can be granted by the DHS Secretary if “a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest, that no American worker is available to fill the role, that the alien worker does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States, and that requiring the petitioning employer to make the payment on the alien’s behalf would significantly undermine the interests of the United States.” An email address ([email protected]) is provided where those seeking the exception may submit their request and supporting evidence in advance of filing the H-1B petition.
In practice, this update exempts most first-time H-1B applicants from the $100,000 fee. Although difficult to find exact numbers, approximately three-quarters of current H-1B workers graduated from a U.S. university and likely changed from F-1 to H-1B status while within the United States. This means many employers will likely not be required to pay the new fee in their normal course of business.
Additional H-1B restrictions and changes have already been proposed or are expected in the coming weeks and months that will likely narrow the pool of qualifying beneficiaries and H-1B positions, including changes to prevailing wage requirements. These include already proposed changes to the lottery selection process and likely proposals to raise prevailing wage levels and more tightly define which occupations qualify for H-1B status. Since many of the upcoming changes are expected to disproportionately affect H-1B beneficiaries in entry-level and low-experience positions, students and less-experienced, lower-paying H-1B applicants will face limited options. Several lawsuits challenging the fee are working their way through the court system and are likely to have initial rulings before the March 2026 H-1B lottery. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities (AAU), among other plaintiffs, argue the fee exceeds the president’s authority and should be struck down. We will continue to monitor these cases as they advance.
Beltway Buzz, November 14, 2025
Shutdown Ends, Federal Government Reopens. The record-breaking forty-three-day federal government shutdown ended this week. On the evening of November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law a spending package that extended government funding for most federal agencies through January 30, 2026, while also funding the legislative branch and the departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs through September 30, 2026. The deal also reversed the layoffs of federal employees that had occurred during the shutdown and ensured that furloughed federal workers would receive back pay. Notably, the legislative package did not include an extension of Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of this year. Thus, with the spending issue merely postponed and the healthcare debate unresolved, the Buzz expects these issues to remain front and center in the U.S. Congress for the remainder of the year and into 2026.
There is one other item to note about the shutdown that could have labor and employment policy implications going forward. Multiple times during the shutdown, including when President Trump signed the eventual spending deal into law, he called for an end to the legislative filibuster. With roughly three more years left in office, the Buzz suspects this won’t be the last time President Trump makes this demand. If Republicans abandon the filibuster to push through their legislative priorities (which could include things like employment-based immigration reform), Democrats will likely do the same when they control Congress.
Agency Personnel Update. Late last week, the following officials were sworn in to leadership positions within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
Jonathan Berry now serves as the solicitor of labor.
Andrew Rogers serves as the administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
David Keeling serves as the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, leading the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Daniel Aronowitz serves as assistant secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Wayne Palmer serves as the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, leading the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
With these political appointees in place and other agency personnel back on the job, the DOL’s regulatory and enforcement agendas are expected to kick into high gear in the coming weeks.
Additionally, Andrea Lucas was officially made chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), removing the “acting” designation that she had held since the beginning of the year. While the move doesn’t provide Chair Lucas with any additional legal authority, it does give her greater internal influence within the Commission and indicates that her agenda will remain in place going forward.
Republicans Seek Labor Reform. This week, U.S. Senate Republicans released a slate of bills aimed at reforming current labor law practices and procedures. The bills are as follows:
‘‘Worker Reforming Elections for Speedy and Unimpeded Labor Talks Act’’ (‘‘Worker RESULTS Act’’). The bill would:
require bargaining representatives to be chosen solely through a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board;
require at least two-thirds of all employees in a bargaining unit to vote in a secret-ballot election for a bargaining representative to be elected;
prohibit the filing of a decertification petition before a collective bargaining agreement goes into effect. However, the bill would allow for a ninety-day decertification “window period” if the Board finds the labor union is not bargaining collectively in good faith;
allow decertification petitions to be filed after the first two years of a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, employees must wait until after the third year to file a decertification petition; and
require the party filing an unfair labor practice charge for purposes of blocking an election to provide “a written offer of proof in support of the charge.”
“NLRB Stability Act.” This bill would require the Board, when issuing an order, to follow the precedent established by the U.S. court of appeals in the circuit in which the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred.
“Fairness in Filing Act.” The bill would require the filing of unfair labor practice charges to be accompanied by “documentation of evidence” (such as an affidavit, an email, or a photograph, etc.). The bill also would require the Board to allow respondents “to inspect, copy, test, or sample” such evidence prior to a hearing. Persons filing frivolous charges could be fined up to $5,000.
“Union Members Right to Know Act.” This bill would:
amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to codify the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, requiring unions to notify employees of their rights to refrain from joining a union and only pay fees that cover the union’s cost of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment; and
require a union to obtain affirmative authorization to spend employees’ (including union members’) union dues, fees, or assessments “not directly related to the labor organization’s collective bargaining or contract administration functions.”
“Protection on the Picket Line Act.’’ This bill would permit employers to take disciplinary action against employees who engage in harassing or abusive conduct while participating in an activity protected by Section 7 of the NLRA (e.g., shouting racial epithets while participating in a strike).
‘‘Worker Privacy Act.’’ This bill would allow employees to limit the amount and type of personal contact data that employers are otherwise required to provide to labor unions prior to a representation election.
Of course, Senate Democrats are unlikely to support these measures, though the bills could serve as legislative alternatives for Republicans who might otherwise be persuaded by Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) labor reform package.
Project Firewall Update. According to media reports, the DOL’s Project Firewall has initiated nearly 200 investigations into employer misuse of the H-1B visa program. It is unclear how the skeletal staff that remained at the DOL during the forty-three-day shutdown managed to accomplish this, although other DOL immigration-related processes, such as the issuance of prevailing wage determinations and labor certifications, continued operations during some of the shutdown. Regardless, with the return of DOL employees to work and the administration’s scrutiny of the H-1B program, the Buzz expects activity at Project Firewall to tick up in the coming weeks.
Common Cents. On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia pressed its last penny. The move was a result of President Trump’s February 2025 instruction to Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to stop minting the penny, the cost of which (around $.04 per penny) exceeds its actual value. Further, consumer behavior has changed, making the penny, much like the New York Giants (the Buzz’s favorite National Football League team), increasingly irrelevant over recent years.
The first penny was produced in March of 1793 in the very same U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792. The first design of the penny featured a woman in profile with flowing hair, with the word “Liberty” emblazoned above her. President Abraham Lincoln’s image first appeared on the penny in 1909, on the 100-year anniversary of his birth. He was the first U.S. president to appear on a coin.
While the Mint will no longer produce new pennies, the penny remains legal tender. The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to “coin money,” so only Congress can eliminate coins from circulation. For example, in 1930, Congress abolished the $2.50 gold coin.
Court Grants Emergency Stay on FMCSA Interim Final Rule Restricting Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses
After temporarily pausing a recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) interim final rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. has taken the additional action of granting an emergency stay order over the rule.
The rule is aimed at limiting issuance and renewal of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for numerous groups of non-citizens legally in the U.S., including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA holders.
On Nov. 10, 2025, the court put a temporary stay on the interim rule and has gone a step further on Nov. 13 in ordering an emergency motion for stay be granted.
As the court states in its emergency stay order:
To start, for purposes of the stay motions, petitioners have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed in at least three of their challenges to respondents’ interim final rule.
The court then highlights the following three factors:
The FMCSA improperly issued the rule without prior “consultation with the States.”
The FMCSA has not satisfied the narrow good-cause exception to issue the rule without notice and comment.
The FMCSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the rule.
In addition to the above, the court states that “other stay factors also favor such relief.” The court concludes that, despite the FMCSA’s request for a narrow emergency stay, the rule has been restrained in wholeuntil the court comes to a resolution.
Circuit Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson penned a lengthy dissent, arguing for an expedited review of the matter on its merits, rather than granting the emergency stay.
For employers, as the stay continues and the rule will not be implemented, CDLs can continue to be renewed and issued under the prior rules while the court completes its review.
New Illinois Law Expands Employee Privacy Rights and Employer Obligations
Employers in Illinois face big changes ahead. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 2339 — an expansion to the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. The bill is now on Gov. JB Pritzker’s desk and will immediately take effect once signed.
This new legislation is a response to the increased federal immigration enforcement and will reshape employer responsibilities around employment eligibility verification and employee privacy.
SB 2339 draws a new line in the sand for employers using Employment Eligibility Verification Systems like E-Verify. From now on, employers may not impose tougher authorization or re-verification requirements than the federal system itself demands. In other words, stick to the script: follow only what the federal program requires — no more, no less.
The law will also transform how employers handle notifications about discrepancies in employee documentation. If an employer receives notice from a federal agency or a third party not responsible for enforcing immigration law — such as the Social Security Administration or IRS — about a mismatch in an employee’s taxpayer identification number or other documents, the employer cannot take adverse action based solely on this notice; actions like suspension or termination are expressly prohibited.
Instead, employers must give the employee written notice within five business days. Delivery should be in person and by hand whenever feasible, but if that’s not possible, then by mail and email. The notice must explain what the discrepancy is, how long the employee has to respond or contest it, and what comes next.
Coverage under the amended law is broad. These rules apply to both public and private employers statewide. SB 2339 also adds teeth to enforcement. The Illinois Department of Labor and the Attorney General remain empowered to investigate and pursue violations. However, the big change is that labor unions and not-for-profit groups can now bring their own civil actions against employers as “interested parties.”
Individual employees, applicants, or their representatives can also sue directly in Illinois courts. Penalties include: $100 to $1,000 for each violation, mandatory reinstatement and back pay, up to $10,000 penalties for lost jobs, and coverage for attorneys’ fees and damages. For repeated violations, fines rise to $1,000 to $5,000 per infraction.
There are some safe harbors for employers in Illinois. No penalties will be assessed if the employer acted in good faith after seeking guidance from the Illinois Department of Labor or the Department of Homeland Security — or if an honest administrative error didn’t affect an employee’s wages or employment status.
What steps should employers take now? Employers should begin by auditing existing verification and notification protocols. HR and management teams need to be fully informed about the new requirements, particularly the prohibition on taking adverse action based solely on third-party discrepancy notices. It is also important to stay alert for further guidance from the Illinois Department of Labor. Maintaining thorough records will help demonstrate good faith compliance efforts.
Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
A group of 40 Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter to 19 state governors warning that they may be “inadvertently sharing drivers’ data with federal immigration authorities.”
According to the letter, the states “are providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies ‘with frictionless, self-service access to the personal data of all of your residents,’” through the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (Nlets) which has been used by states for over two decades to share personal data of residents—including driver license data from a state’s Department of Motor Vehicles—for law enforcement activities.
According to the letter, the use of Nlets allows “agencies to directly access residents’ data without the knowledge or involvement of any state employee.” Further, Nlets facilitated “over 290 million queries for DMV data, with more than 290,000 queries from ICE and some 600,000 from Homeland Security Investigations during the year before October 1, 2025.” The letter alleges that the queries have increased during the Trump administration.
The letter states “It is now abundantly clear that a major reason that so few states have locked down the data they share through Nlets is because of an information gap.” “Because of the technical complexity of Nlets’ system, few state government officials understand how their state is sharing their residents’ data with federal and out-of-state agencies.”
The lawmakers urge governors to block “unfettered access” to the data, which “would not prevent federal agencies obtaining information from states for solving serious crimes, but taking action would ‘increase accountability and reduce abuse’ by allowing state employees to review data requests first.” According to the letter, “This commonsense step will improve public safety and guard against Trump officials using your state’s data for unjustified, politicized actions, while still allowing continued collaboration on serious crimes.”
According to the letter, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington have already blocked the information sharing and Oregon is in the process of doing so. Nlets states on its website that “we are the information superhighway of the law enforcement community….We do not own any of the data that is being used in the criminal justice or public safety realm – we exist solely for the purpose of securely accessing that information and providing it to the criminal justice community.”
Court Temporarily Pauses FMCSA Interim Final Rule Restricting Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses
The federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has placed a temporary administrative stay on implementation of a recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) interim final rule that would limit issuance and renewal of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for non-domiciled applicants individuals. Lujan, et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, et al., No. 25-1215 (Nov. 10, 2025).
The temporary stay puts on hold the interim final rule on the basis that it would limit CDLs eligibility for numerous groups of non-citizens legally in the U.S., including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA holders.
With the temporary stay in effect, the court will conduct a thorough review making a final determination on the legality of the FMSCA interim rule.
The court order states:
… the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s interim final rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 46,509 (Sept. 29, 2025), be administratively stayed pending further order of the court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motions for stay pending review and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of those motions.
The rule would have limited “issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to individuals with specific lawful employment-based nonimmigrant status categories (H-2A, H-2B, or E-2).” For employers, CDLs can continue to be renewed and issued under the prior rules while the court completes its review.
The court has not yet scheduled oral arguments on the matter, but they are expected in the coming months with a resolution likely in 2026.