US

Subscribe to US via RSS

The immigration policies of the Philippines, Vietnam, and the US are evolving due to shifting political, economic, and social dynamics, creating unique challenges for employers. The Philippines has tightened its process for employing foreign nationals, introducing new rules which prioritize Filipino citizens and skill transfer from foreign employees. In Vietnam, recent government restructuring has caused…

With nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies mandating formal return-to-work policies, employers may face challenges in enforcing RTO practices. Multinational employers should be aware of five key considerations and practical solutions to avoid potential roadblocks.

Click here to continue reading this article.

Original article published in Law360.

Singapore, Australia and the US are taking distinct approaches to immigration policies, each with significant implications for employers. Singapore is balancing the attraction of highly skilled foreign talent with the need to prioritize local workers, potentially through stricter regulatory measures. In contrast, Australia’s new visa program has expanded opportunities for foreign talent by allowing more…

The two largest global economies-the US and China-stand in stark contrast with their current immigration policies. The US is moving towards restrictive measures, potentially hindering employers’ efforts to recruit and relocate foreign talent. China has taken a more open approach, resulting in a significant increase in foreign national travelers and policies streamlining work authorization for…

Recent media coverage highlights incidents relating to enhanced vetting and potential travel bans of foreign nationals by State and Homeland Security officials at US Consulates and US ports of entry. Several countries have issued travel advisories for the United States. While the reported cases impact a limited number of individual travelers, the widespread news has…

As discussed in our blog here, President Trump’s series of executive orders aimed at eradicating “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs across the federal government and in the private sector did not define the term “illegal discrimination.” On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice released guidance addressing this and outlining how DEI practices may be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

Together, the EEOC and DOJ issued a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” providing examples of “DEI-related discrimination” under Title VII and directing employees who “suspect [they] have experienced DEI-related discrimination” to “contact the EEOC promptly.” 

The EEOC simultaneously released more detailed guidance entitled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” which includes eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI practices.Continue Reading EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination

On March 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Trump’s executive orders related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (our summary of the DEI EOs is here). This decision temporarily reinstates the enforcement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, pending further appellate review.

Background

As discussed here, on February 21, a Maryland district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, citing concerns that the EOs were likely to violate the First and Fifth Amendments by chilling free speech and due process. The preliminary injunction had blocked the federal government from forcing contractors and grantees to certify that they aren’t promoting “illegal DEI.”

The government defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit, while also seeking a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction. On March 3, the district court denied their request for a stay with Judge Abelson concluding that the potential harm of the orders outweighed the administration’s policy priorities.

The Fourth Circuit’s Panel Decision

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously stayed the injunction on March 14, with all three judges writing separate concurrences. There is an undercurrent in each opinion that the injunction came too early (for it’s unclear still what types of programs the government will try to eliminate) to determine if the government’s actions will implicate the First and Fifth Amendment concerns raised by plaintiffs. Also, the court takes the government defendant’s representations that the EOs are distinctly limited in scope and apply only to conduct that violates existing federal anti-discrimination law as true.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Allows Trump Administration to Enforce DEI EOs (For Now)

Germany, the UK, and the US are all experiencing movement towards more restrictive immigration policies, driven by rising migrant numbers, geopolitical tensions and security concerns. In this Mobility Minute video chat, our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys delve into this trend. We review changes following the recent election in Germany, the UK’s increased enforcement actions…

** UPDATE ** On March 3, 2025, the federal judge in the Maryland lawsuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction discussed below.
The judge ruled that the administration failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that the injunction was necessary to prevent potential violations of free speech
…