March 2025 Visa Bulletin – Some Cracks in the Ice
The State Department has published the March Visa Bulletin. After most priority dates froze in February, March promises modest thaws in all regions and most categories.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you’re new to these blog posts. If you’re an old hand at the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the US Department of State (in collaboration with US Citizenship and Immigration Services). If your priority date (that is, the date you got a place 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’re applying at a US embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you’re 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 March VB –
India progresses in all categories except EB-1:
EB-1 holds at February 1, 2022
EB-2 advances5 months to December 1, 2012
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance5 months to February 1, 2013
China advances in two categories:
EB-1 remains stalled at November 8, 2022
EB-2 advances 16 days to May 8, 2020
EB-3 Professionals advances another full month to August 1, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stays stuck at January 1, 2017
All Other Countries, which did not move at all in February, progresses in two categories:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances5 months to May 15, 2023
EB-3 Professionals holds at December 1, 2022
EB-3 Other Workers advances almost 2 months to February 1, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in March based on Final Action Dates, not the more favorable Dates for Filing chart.
Employers Should Plan for the Impact of Evolving Social Policy on Their Workforce
Even before the 2024 presidential election and the recent wave of executive orders, employers were evaluating their positions on various social issues.
Whether taking a formal stand, abstaining from a position, or landing somewhere in between, employers often consider external stakeholders and the court of public opinion. But they frequently forget about a critical and impactful audience—their employees.
Below are a few key areas where evolving social policies intersect with employee considerations.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Policies: Regulations around diversity, equity, and inclusion; sustainability; the environment; and financial investments can differ across federal, state, and local jurisdictions, and certain rules apply only to government contractors. Aside from legal concerns, employers may face public and private questions about their actions or policies from employees. As such, employers should make sure that their ESG policies are current, thoughtful, and well communicated, especially in light of changing public sentiment, regulations, and legislation.
Social Media and Freedom of Speech: Employer policies on social media, recording/filming in the workplace (and online), volunteerism, non-solicitation, and whistleblowing should be updated to ensure that they reflect the latest laws, regulations, and guidance by applicable agencies and regulatory bodies. Management should also be trained on these policies, including how to respond to situations when the company’s employees choose to speak out on issues.
Benefit Programs: Employees might question their employer’s benefit policies relating to health care coverage provisions, benefit subsidies, time off/leave and holidays, and even voluntary benefit choices. Do these programs appear to favor certain employees over others? Employers should regularly evaluate these programs not only for compliance but also through the lens of their employees’ needs and expectations, which may differ based on location.
Labor Negotiations: An employer’s social advocacy and related positions impact its employees and the labor unions that currently—or may in the future—represent them. Therefore, employers should make sure that they have a strategy that supports this relationship and is in compliance with applicable labor laws, as well as labor contracts that are in place.
Outsourced, Offshore/Nearshore Workforce: When a company’s contingent and contract labor works side by side with the company’s employees, it’s essential that policies and programs account for this important and sometimes significant part of the workforce. Vendor contracts and communication strategies should also be aligned with these efforts.
Immigration Policies: Most industries and their employees are affected by immigration policy. A legal immigrant workforce will likely be concerned about their own status and that of their families during this uncertain time. Employers must review their policies and programs for these valuable workers and consider what supports, policies, and communications they should provide.
Mandatory Training programs: Employers should annually review mandatory training programs against changing regulations and expectations, as well as current strategies related to advocacy and ESG.
The bottom line: An employer’s stand on social issues and related policies, investments, programs, and trainings affects its workforce. A company’s employees are its face to customers and the public, so employees’ engagement and alignment matters. Because laws and regulations affecting ESG are continually changing, employees will be more engaged and better ambassadors for their employer if it has a well-considered strategy and communication plan addressing these topics.
Michelle Wright also contributed to this post
Top Tips for Companies to Prepare for an Immigration Visit
Here are our top tips to assist companies and institutions in preparing for visits by immigration officials. The second Trump administration has set robust enforcement of the immigration laws as a top-level priority. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that directed all executive branch departments and agencies to “employ all lawful means” to ensure “total and efficient” enforcement of federal immigration laws. As an initial step, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated its prior “sensitive location” policy that prevented immigration enforcement activities in or near areas such as schools, medical facilities, places of worship, social service centers, daycare centers, or shelters without agency headquarters approval or exigent circumstances. In commenting on the new policy, the DHS spokesperson stated, “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.” While we have not heard any confirmed reports of enforcement in these spaces since the rescinding of the Biden-era guidance, it would be prudent for businesses to be prepared and have a lawful response plan for visits from immigration authorities, including local police authorities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other agencies empowered to enforce the immigration laws.
Review Your Policies. Keep in mind that immigration authorities are specialized law enforcement. Many companies already will have policies in place that instruct employees how to respond generally to inquiries by law enforcement. Therefore, companies should ensure employees are properly trained on company policies concerning how to interact with ICE or other immigration enforcement agents. If your company does not have such a policy and is in a category of spaces no longer protected as “sensitive locations,” now may be the time to study and potentially adopt appropriate policies. Companies should consider appointing “liaisons,” or other point persons at each company location, who are specially trained and authorized to interact with law enforcement. This will ensure consistency of process and help relieve stress of others who may be directly impacted by these immigration encounters.
Identify Public versus Private Areas. Companies should decide whether they want to have policies or procedures indicating a clear delineation between their public and private spaces. Immigration agents generally do not need permission to enter public areas of a business. Public spaces are general areas that are accessible not only to clients, staff, patients, or students but are accessible and available to the general public. These can include parking lots, waiting areas, hallways, lobbies, or entrances. Areas that are not open and accessible to the public are generally considered private areas, where law enforcement is accordingly not permitted without legal authority. To go beyond these public spaces into private areas, enforcement agents may need to show a warrant (more on this below), not only to apprehend a person but also to enter and search any non-public spaces of a business absent permission from the business. Given that the previous guidance prevented enforcement near protected areas without agency headquarters approval or exigent circumstances, enforcement agents likely will take advantage of accessing public spaces before seeking access to private spaces. Businesses should consider whether they wish to specifically designate public and private areas to help manage engagement with law enforcement.
Review the Warrant. If the enforcement agent is seeking access to a private space and the company decides not to consent voluntarily to such access, then an employee will need to ask to see the warrant; if the agent presents a warrant, the best place to start is to read the scope and wording of the warrant. There are several different types of warrants that can be used in immigration enforcement situations, so a lawyer or trained layperson may need to review the warrant to know what type of warrant the enforcement officer is presenting to gain access. (Samples are included at the end of this piece.)
Judicial Warrant: This is a formal written order, issued by a judicial officer, that authorizes law enforcement to make an arrest or conduct a search. This is issued by a court — typically a federal court — so you will see something like “U.S. District Court” at the top of the warrant and a signature from a judge or magistrate judge at the bottom. Pay close attention to whether the warrant allows for (1) just an arrest of a person named in the warrant, (2) a search for items on the identified person’s body, or (3) a search of a location for listed items or persons. An arrest warrant does not give law enforcement permission to enter a particular private space but does permit the agent to arrest someone listed in the warrant. A search warrant, by contrast, permits the specified enforcement agency to search a specified area (including public and private spaces) for papers, data, property, or persons and seize such listed items or identified persons. Companies should be observant during law enforcement activities on their premises, and carefully and thoroughly document law enforcement actions at all times while they are on company premises.
Administrative Warrant: An administrative warrant authorizes a law enforcement officer from a federal agency, such as ICE or CBP, to make an arrest or remove/deport someone from the country, depending on the type of administrative warrant utilized. This type of warrant is issued by a federal agency, such as ICE, not a court, and can therefore be signed by an “immigration judge” or “immigration official.” Importantly, this warrant does not authorize a search of a private area. Practically speaking, an administrative warrant does not allow agents to enter a private area to apprehend a person named in the warrant or to search an area or seize private property or information, even if the agents reasonably believe the person to be located in that area. Absent changes to the law, administrative warrants cannot be used to search premises.
“Blackie’s” Warrant: This judicial warrant, named after the case Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, is a specific type of judicial warrant that does not always name or even describe the person or people sought. A Blackie’s warrant is a civil search warrant issued by a magistrate judge, which authorizes immigration agents to enter private premises for the purpose of enforcing the civil/administration provisions of law relating to exclusion and deportation. While this warrant has fallen out of favor in many jurisdictions, we may begin to see more of its use going forward. Again, this warrant may provide legal authority for enforcement agents to search a private space, without the owner’s consent, for persons unlawfully in the United States.
Consider Privacy Laws. To the extent the company is a covered entity or business associate subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or a similar entity subject to state laws, the company will need to review a law enforcement request to ensure compliance with applicable privacy laws. Protected health information can be disclosed under HIPAA and state law in limited circumstances. HIPAA permits (but does not require) disclosing protected health information in compliance with, and as limited by the relevant requirements of, a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena, or a summons. HIPAA also permits disclosure pursuant to administrative requests for which response is required by law, including an administrative subpoena or summons, a civil or an authorized investigative demand, or similar process authorized under law provided all of the following are true: (1) the information sought is relevant and material to the law enforcement agency, (2) requested information is specific and limited in scope as reasonably practicable, and (3) de-identified information could not be reasonably used. There also are federal and state privacy protections in place for certain sensitive types of health information. State law can be more restrictive, so make sure your policies on responding to law enforcement take into account any relevant state law(s). The company’s existing policies and procedures should address the production of this type of information in response to law enforcement requests.
Triage. The company should request from law enforcement a reasonable amount of time to review and perform an initial assessment of the warrant, to appropriately escalate to legal counsel or a point person as needed. If it is something new or unfamiliar, seek advice from legal counsel, who should carefully review the warrant to determine the company’s obligations in interacting with law enforcement. Provide training to staff and leadership to ensure they read any paperwork provided and triage the situation. Again, appointing “liaisons” at each worksite who are specially trained and designated with authority to interact with enforcement agencies may be advisable.
Avoid Obstructing Law Enforcement. Importantly, employees should avoid obstructing law enforcement’s activities. Even if such activities appear to go beyond the scope of the warrant, interfering is not helpful and can risk criminal charges. Legal remedies for law enforcement overstepping, including unlawful searches and seizures, can be addressed later in the process. Interfering with law enforcement while they are onsite often will serve only to escalate the situation.
The immigration landscape is quickly changing under the Trump administration, but preparing for potential enforcement in advance and training employees on these issues can help your company know how best to respond to unfamiliar situations. Constitutional law provides companies with important protections from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement, so consultation with legal counsel to understand those rights and obligations is critical to ensuring compliance with the law.
Please contact a member of Foley’s Immigration, Government Enforcement or Labor & Employment teams with questions for help preparing for immigration enforcement action on site or for further information about the federal government’s new immigration-related policies.
Samples of Warrants
Judicial Warrant for a search:
Judicial Warrant for an arrest only:
Administrative Warrant (Warrant of Removal/Deportation)
Administrative Warrant (Warrant for Arrest)
H-1B Lottery Insights Part 2: Filing Options and Key Strategies for FY2026 [Podcast]
In the second part of our two-part podcast series on H-1B visa applications, Kara Lancaster (shareholder, Raleigh) and Meagan Dziura (of counsel, Raleigh) begin with a deep dive into the process of how individuals selected in the H-1B lottery file petitions (including related travel restrictions) the filing options for those selected (including change of status and consular notification), and the timeline for when individuals can enter the United States. Kara and Meagan touch on special provisions for F-1 students, the importance of considering L-1 visa holders, and other visa categories that may also benefit from entering the lottery. The speakers also cover recent updates from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the impact of increased fees, and strategies for managing various employee visa situations.
Listen to part one here.
Canada reveals international student enrolment limits for 2025
Canada reveals international student enrolment limits for 2025. The Canadian government has just released the study permit issuance targets for 2025, along with the breakdown of how those targets will be distributed across the country under the Provincial Attestation Letter (PAL) formula introduced in 2024. Since the government implemented caps on new international students last […]
H-1B Lottery Insights Part 1: From Basics to Registration [Podcast]
In part one of this two-part podcast series on H-1B visa applications, Kara Lancaster (shareholder, Raleigh) and Meagan Dziura (of counsel, Raleigh) discuss recent updates from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and provide valuable insights on how to prepare for the fiscal year 2026 H-1B lottery. Meagan and Kara cover the basics of the H-1B visa, its benefits, and why it is a popular choice among employers. They share practical tips on what steps you can take now to prepare for the registration window, which typically opens in early March, including updates from USCIS and the importance of early planning. The conversation also covers the benefits of the H-1B visa, recent changes to the registration process, and the impact of increased fees on employers.
Navigating OFCCP Changes: Insights on Compliance Post-EO 14173 [Podcast]
In this podcast, shareholders Scott Kelly (Birmingham) and Lauren Hicks (Indianapolis/Atlanta) provide an update on the current status of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which has been in flux since President Trump’s inauguration. Lauren and Scott discuss the uncertainty that federal contractors have faced since the new administration issued Executive Order (EO) 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which immediately revoked EO 11246 and gave federal contractors and subcontractors 90 days to comply. In addition, they address voluntary compliance options and the considerations for unwinding compliance with EO 11246 (for example, regarding job postings, career websites, self-identification, clauses with vendors and subcontractors, etc.). Lauren and Scott also highlight that the obligations under Section 503 and Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) remain in effect, meaning the annual affirmative action requirements under both programs are still applicable.
A Changing Enforcement Landscape Under the New Administration
As the Trump Administration embarks on its second term, significant shifts in government enforcement priorities are quickly taking shape. Not surprisingly, this administration appears to be focusing on immigration, drug and violent crime offenses, and traditional fraud rather than more novel white-collar enforcement. Additionally, it appears as though the Department of Justice will face potential resource issues due to the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Whether that is through hiring freezes, resignations resulting from ending remote work, layoffs, and potential buyouts of federal employees, the reduction of resources could have a substantial impact on staffing for white-collar enforcement cases, which tend to be resource intensive. Nonetheless, businesses and industry professionals should be aware of these evolving trends to ensure compliance and readiness for potential government investigations. Below we highlight what we expect to see throughout this administration’s term.
Immigration: The Trump Administration has reaffirmed its commitment to stringent immigration enforcement. Prior to this administration taking office, agencies like the Department of Labor had been focused on underage labor violations and holding businesses accountable for third party staffing companies. Now, however, the focus will shift to the removal of anyone not legally in the United States, likely leading to an increase in ICE raids and I-9 audits, including in places like hospitals, schools and places of worship, all of which used to be safe havens for this type of enforcement activity.
DEI and False Claims Act Liability: President: President Trump’s executive order aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies introduces new compliance challenges for federal contractors and grant recipients. The order reverses federal contracting requirements dating back nearly 60 years, which obligated federal contractors and subcontractors to implement affirmative action programs. The January 21, 2025, executive order requires federal contractors and grant recipients to agree that their “compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions” under the False Claims Act (FCA). Second, it requires federal contractors and grant recipients to certify that they do “not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” The new certification and materiality requirements create heightened FCA risk for clients who participate in government programs and may incentivize whistleblowers to initiate qui tam actions.
Health Care: Health care enforcement, particularly those involving the FCA, is anticipated to continue at a steady pace. During President Trump’s first term, health care enforcement actions increased in his second year and remained steady thereafter, so we can likely expect a similar trend this term. Additionally, the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is taking steps to actively mine data for fraud, particularly in Medicare and Medicaid, which could lead to an increase in enforcement activities in the healthcare sector.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: While the Department of Justice (DOJ) achieved record enforcement levels for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases during the previous term, President Trump has signed an executive order directing the DOJ to pause criminal prosecutions related to the bribing of foreign government officials under the FCPA and instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prepare new guidelines for enforcement. The executive order comes a week after Attorney General Pam Bondi had already announced via a memo that the DOJ would be scaling back laws governing foreign lobbying transparency and bribes of foreign officials. In the memo, Attorney General Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division’s corporate enforcement unit and directed the Department of Justice’s money laundering office to prioritize cartels and transnational crime.
SEC Enforcement: We expect a major scaling back on the SEC’s focus on cryptocurrency, internal accounting and disclosure control violations. President Trump’s nominee as SEC chairman, Paul Atkins, is a known supporter of the crypto industry. Instead, we anticipate a renewed focus on traditional securities fraud cases, including like retail investor protection, Ponzi schemes, and insider trading. Under Chair Gensler, corporate penalties and disgorgement reached record highs, but with a Republican-controlled SEC we are likely to see smaller penalties and an adherence to disgorgement limitations set by the Supreme Court.
Antitrust: Antitrust enforcement is expected to pivot away from merger scrutiny towards addressing concerns related to “Big Tech” and alleged censorship. Additionally, there may be enforcement actions targeting alleged collusion on DEI issues, reflecting the administration’s executive orders and stated policy goals. Industries under high public scrutiny and foreign corporations should be particularly vigilant in preparing for potential agency scrutiny.
As the enforcement landscape continues to evolve, it will be crucial to stay informed and proactive.
What You Need to Know to Prepare for an ICE Raid or Audit
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States and allowing for the use of federal funding for border security and the deployment of armed resources to the region. The following day, the Department of Homeland Security issued a directive rescinding policies that limited enforcement in sensitive locations such as churches, schools and hospitals.
Since this directive was implemented, employers should be prepared to handle ICE immigration enforcement actions or inspections at these locations as ICE raids, which target undocumented employees are not announced in advance. Businesses, schools, employees, and students must be ready and well prepared to address immigration actions by ICE during the foreseeable future.
Preparing requires designating a key representative, such as HR, legal counsel or a senior administrator, to interact with ICE officers and training front-line staff to direct officers to the representative. Employers should be prepared with written response plans and should be aware of their rights—and the rights of their employees.
Immigration Policy Tracker: January 20—February 5, 2025
The first three weeks of the new presidential administration resulted in numerous executive orders and agency actions impacting foreign nationals living and working in the United States. These actions were far-reaching, with potential impacts for employers and sponsored employees across the United States. This article discusses several of the actions that may have the most impact on employers, including updates on visa screening, potential travel restrictions, the sunset of temporary protected status (TPS) for Venezuela, and increased enforcement in sensitive locations, which include hospitals and universities.
Quick Hits
Visa Issuance Review: Several orders have the potential to impact trade visa issuance, visa screening procedures, and the potential for limitations on admission to the United States.
Sunset of TPS for Venezuela: Executive agencies are charged with reviewing humanitarian status programs, resulting in the first termination of temporary protected status programs.
Increased Enforcement: DHS rescinded a long-standing policy on conducting enforcement actions in sensitive locations, and President Trump issued an executive order that may impact universities with foreign students.
Review of Trade Agreements, Visa Issuance Procedures, and Potential for Travel Bans
The “America First Trade Policy” revisits and reviews the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as well as other existing U.S. trade agreements in consultation with other executive departments and agencies.
The outcome of this review has the potential to impact trade visa categories, including TN, E-1, E-2, E-3, and H-1B1 visas.
The “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats” executive order charges executive agencies, including the U.S. Department of State, with reviewing visa application vetting procedures. Agencies need to make a recommendation within the next sixty days if certain countries and their citizens require enhanced vetting or a full suspension of admission to the United States.
This order has the potential to increase visa processing times and may result in a partial or full suspension of entry for citizens from certain countries.
Humanitarian Programs Under Review
Last week, the 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela was officially terminated, sunsetting that program as of April 7, 2025. This was the most recent humanitarian program to come under review. The administration also suspended U.S. participation in the refugee admissions program for the next ninety days under the “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program” executive order. All humanitarian parole and temporary protected status designations have been ordered to be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” executive order.
TPS and other humanitarian parole programs account for over a million individuals in the United States, and a sunset of work authorizations in these categories may have impacts across the U.S. labor market.
Immigration Enforcement Expanded
Immigration enforcement was a central element of the incoming administration’s policy platform, and the first three weeks saw numerous executive orders relating enforcement actions.
DHS revoked a long-standing policy limiting enforcement actions at sensitive locations, which included schools, medical facilities, places of worship, social services establishments, children’s gathering places (playgrounds and childcare centers), places for disaster or emergency response and relief, wedding and/or funeral sites, and public demonstrations (parades, marches, demonstrations, and rallies).
With the rescission of the prior sensitive areas policy, enforcement actions may now be conducted in locations that had previously not experienced U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. ICE officers can conduct enforcement actions—which include arrests, interviews, searches, and surveillance—in sensitive areas without requiring authorization from senior DHS officials.
ICE officers are encouraged to use discretion, “along with a healthy dose of common sense” when conducting arrests, searches, and interviews in these locations.
On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that affirms the administration will “us[e] all available and appropriate legal tools” to combat antisemitism, especially at higher education institutions. The order requests federal agencies to submit reports “[w]ithin 60 days of the date of [the] order” that include, among other data, inventory of all pending administrative complaints, complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court cases against universities alleging civil rights violations relating to antisemitic activities on campus.
The order also directs agencies to recommend ways to educate higher education institutions on the grounds for inadmissibility, enabling such institutions to monitor, report, and investigate relevant activities by foreign national students, faculty, and staff, potentially leading to their removal.
Key Takeaways
Executive orders impacting foreign national workers in the United States have created uncertainty for employers and employees. Given the stated policy platform of the administration, employers can expect additional policy changes in the coming weeks.
Kristen M. Tully also contributed to this article.
Attorney General Bondi’s Day One Orders for DOJ
Shortly after her confirmation, and just after her swearing-in by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued fourteen memoranda that seek to reform the Department of Justice by rescinding prior guidance, issuing new guidance, and establishing new priorities for the nation’s chief law enforcement and prosecuting agency. We examine below the actions taken by Attorney General Bondi.
“Elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI): Two of the memos focus on the elimination of prior Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts at the Department and in the private sector. These directives stem from President Trump’s executive order on January 21, 2025 concerning “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”. The first memo requires “[a]ll Department materials that encouraged or permitted race- or sex-based preferences as a method of compliance with federal civil rights laws” to be rescinded and replaced with new guidance. The second memo directs theDOJ’s Civil Rights Division to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.” For a full summary of the DOJ’s focus on DEI, go to the blog post by our colleagues in Labor and Employment.
Immigration. This memo directs the DOJ to withhold federal funding from, and pursue enforcement actions against, sanctuary cities. The memo cites 8 U.S.C. § 1373which provides that state or location jurisdictions “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The memo warns that any sanctuary cities that violate this statute will receive a cut in federal funding cuts.
Elimination of Cartels. This memo directs DOJ personnel to focus its efforts to eliminate cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). The memo identifies various enforcement mechanisms and resources that may be used in carrying out the directive. Notably, the memo calls for the Department to shift the focus of its prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to “the criminal operations of Cartels and TCO”. Additionally, the memo removes the requirement that the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division handle all investigations and prosecutions under the FCPA, now permitting any U.S. Attorney’s Office to initiate charges with only 24 hours of advance notice to Main Justice required. It is unclear whether, and to what degree, DOJ will continue its pending corporate investigations and prosecutions and/ or initiate new ones.
Joint Task Force October 7. This memo focuses on the creation of the Joint Tasks Force October 7 to “seek[] justice for victims of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack in Israel” and address ongoing antisemitic threats in the United States.
Charging, Pleas Negotiations, Etc. This memo outlines general policy regarding charging, plea negotiations, and sentencing for prosecutors. It lays out the Department’s criminal enforcement including immigration enforcement; human trafficking and smuggling; transnational organized crime, cartels, and gangs; and protection of law enforcement personnel. The memo also disbands the Foreign Influence Task Force and the National Security Division’s Corporate Enforcement Unit. [I think we should also note that the guidance is now to charge the most serious, readily provable crime, with the highest “recommended” sentence under the guidelines. Quote the language.]
“Zealous” Advocacy on Behalf of the U.S. This memo directs DOJ to “zealously defend the interest of the United States.” The memo emphasizes the responsibilities DOJ attorneys have to enforce the laws of the United States, but also highlights their responsibility to “vigorously defend[] presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States.” This memo suggests discipline for DOJ attorneys that decline to sign briefs or appear in court on personal grounds or “otherwise delay or impede the Department’s mission.”
Recession of Biden Administration Guidance. Three of the memos roll back specific directives made by former Attorney General Merrick Garland who served in the Biden Administration, including those that pertained to the interpretation of guidance documents, third-party settlements to non-governmental, third-party organizations, and the prioritization of environmental prosecutions.
Death Penalty. Two memos focus on the death penalty—one memo directs U.S. Attorney’s Offices “to assist local prosecutors in pursuing death sentences under state law against the 37 commuted inmates” who’s sentence former President Joe Biden previously commuted, while the other memo revives the federal death penalty by lifting the moratorium on federal executions and provides for the re-review of pending cases potentially eligible for death.
DOJ Employees Back to the Office. This memo directs DOJ employees to return to work in-person by February 24, 2025 and reinforces President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Presidential Memorandum on the same matter.
Weaponization Work Group. This memo targets “abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, and other forms of misconduct.” The directive addresses Trump’s January 20 Executive Order concerning “Ending the Weaponization of The Federal Government” by establishing a “Weaponization Work Group,” tasked with reviewing criminal and civil enforcement over the last 4 years, and reporting to the White House “instances where a department’s or agency’s conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”
5 Benefits Of The Dutch American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) Visa
The DAFT visa is a unique agreement between the Netherlands and the United States. It aims to create more entrepreneurial opportunities for U.S. citizens in the Netherlands. You can enjoy several benefits if you are looking to establish a business in Europe. However, it is best to get some legal advice before you proceed with […]