United states

Subscribe to United states via RSS

ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months. 

Key Takeaways

In response to this change, employers should: 

  • Conduct an I-9 audit to determine potential penalties under the new guidelines and determine which, if any, substantive errors can be rehabilitated.
  • Conduct internal training to ensure the company has an established I-9 protocol and team to ensure the process is being completed accurately and in a timely manner.
  • Create a protocol for the handling of I-9 audits at the worksite should ICE issue a subpoena.

In more detail

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.

Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer Liability

On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:

  • No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
  • Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.

Takeaway for Employers

Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.

For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework

By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis

On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.

Background

The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.

Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now

The Trump Administration recently announced wide-ranging immigration policy changes that directly impact most employer-sponsored visa holders. While each update may seem minor or only pertinent to specific cases, they amount to notable changes when viewed collectively. The latest developments highlight the critical importance of staying informed of immigration changes and reviewing internal practices to ensure immigration compliance. Below is a summary of changes most likely to impact companies and their visa-holding employees. 

1. H-1B visa stamping now requires social media vetting, causing significant delays and appointment cancellations in India

  • All H-1B and H-4 visa applicants are subject to mandatory social media vetting, requiring that applicants set their social media profiles to public. This is an expansion of the social media vetting announced earlier in the year for student visa applicants.
  • This change in policy does not impact USCIS filings and only applies to applicants for visa stamps at US Embassies or Consulates outside of the United States.
  • There have been widespread reports of H-1B visa appointments being cancelled and rescheduled due to the change in policy, particularly in India.

Key Takeaway   

Employers and employees should be prepared for H-1B and H-4 visa stamping to take longer due to this new process. Employers should know their visa population including H-1B (and H-4) employees who will travel for visa stamping given the possibility of cancellation and/or delay. Employers should have clear policy guidelines regarding remote work and consider contingency plans due to an employee’s extended absence abroad.  

Continue Reading US Immigration Update: What Employers Should Know About Immigration Changes in Q4

This article was originally published by IAPP linked here.

When monitoring employees in the workplace in the U.S. and Canada, employers must be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws. 

In the US, employers can mostly negate privacy expectations from developing in the workplace by providing clear notice of monitoring practices and which notice is required in certain states, such as New York. But under the California Consumer Privacy Act, data minimization requirements apply and monitoring practices must be justifiable as necessary and proportionate.

In Canada, employers are required to balance operational needs such as safety, security and productivity, with the privacy rights of their employees. Monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy legislation, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices. 

For federally regulated private-sector employers — such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies — employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Provinces that have enacted privacy laws deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from its collection, use and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only Alberta, British Columbia and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.

US: A patchwork of requirements apply to employers

At the federal level in the U.S., employee monitoring is primarily governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, which permit monitoring for legitimate business purposes but impose strict limits on unauthorized interception and access to private communications. Further, employers must conduct all workplace monitoring and surveillance in compliance with federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. And, all employers, even those with a nonunionized workforce, must comply with the National Labor Relations Act when conducting workplace monitoring and surveillance. 

Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in the US and Canada: What Employers Need to Know

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence” (the “Order”). The Order represents the Administration’s latest and most pointed attempt to stop and reverse the wave of state AI legislation that has emerged over the preceding year, which the Order asserts “creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.” The Order raises the political stakes regarding state AI laws and creates uncertainty in the form of anticipated litigation, but does not instantly remove current or impending state AI law obligations for companies developing or deploying AI.

Continue Reading Pre-emption by Executive Order: Trump Order Moves to Block State AI Laws

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Brazil, Italy, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Click here to view.

On July 23, the White House unveiled its much-anticipated AI Action Plan. The Action Plan follows President Trump’s Executive Order 14179 of January 23 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”—which directed the development of the Action Plan within 180 days—and subsequent consultation with stakeholders to “define the priority policy actions needed to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance, and to ensure that unnecessarily burdensome requirements do not hamper private sector AI innovation.” This update provides a summary of the Action Plan and key considerations for businesses developing or deploying AI.

The Action Plan is structured around three pillars: (I) Accelerating AI Innovation, (II) Building American AI Infrastructure, and (III) Leading in International AI Diplomacy and Security. Although, the AI Action Plan is not legally binding in itself, each pillar contains a number of policy recommendations and actions, which will subsequently need to be actioned by various government agencies and institutes.

Pillar I – Accelerating AI Innovation

Pillar I focuses on reducing the impact of regulation that may hamper AI development. To this end, the Action Plan instructs the Office of Management and Budget to “consider a state’s AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions and limit funding if the state’s AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.” Pillar I emphasizes the need for workplace action that supports transition to an AI economy, citing AI literary and skill development among key workforce priorities.  The Action Plan also calls for federal- and state-led efforts to evaluate the impact of AI on the labor market. In order to promote advancements in American AI technologies, Pillar I specifically calls for investment in open-source AI models, support for the preparation of high-quality datasets for use in model training, and acceleration of the federal government’s adoption of AI.

Pillar II – Building American AI Infrastructure

Pillar II of the Action Plan includes actions aimed at strengthening the country’s AI infrastructure. The Action Plan seeks to streamline the expansion of America’s semiconductor manufacturing capabilities by removing extraneous policy requirements for CHIPS-funded semiconductor manufacturing operations.  Pillar II also focuses on the fortification of AI systems and other critical infrastructure assets against cybersecurity threats. In order to achieve these goals, the Action Plan proposes various measures to enhance cybersecurity protections such as sharing AI-security threat intelligence across critical infrastructure sectors and developing standards to facilitate the development of resilient and secure AI systems.

Continue Reading US AI Vision in Action: What Businesses Need to Know About the White House AI Action Plan