Immigration Topics Every Lawyer Needs To Know Under Trump 2.0
4.20.2026
January 2026 marked the completion of President Trump’s first year of his second term in the White House. While the year was filled with new initiatives, Trump’s focus on immigration is perhaps the most consequential, not just because of the protests it has sparked but also because of the legal questions it has raised. Over the year, immigration law has been reshaped less through new legislation than through changes in enforcement priorities, executive interpretation, and administrative practice. The result has been a meaningful shift in how immigration law functions in daily practice – and in how often it intersects with legal work well outside the traditional immigration context.
For lawyers, the central lesson of the past year is not simply that immigration law has become more complex, but that it has become more integrated into the broader legal and regulatory landscape. Immigration considerations now influence decisions in corporate governance, criminal defense, family law, education, health care and finance.
What defined the administration’s first year was not comprehensive statutory reform, but the assertive use of executive authority and administrative discretion. Federal agencies emphasized enforcement, reassessed discretionary programs, and started to coordinate more closely across departments. Longstanding statutory provisions – particularly those granting the executive branch broad authority over entry and enforcement – were interpreted expansively, prompting litigation and ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power. Birthright citizenship, which has made its way to the Supreme Court, is one significant area where the administration is challenging precedent.
At the same time, immigration adjudication became increasingly data driven. Agencies continued to rely on interconnected databases, information sharing, and enhanced vetting procedures. While these tools were not new, their expanded use over the past year reinforced the importance of accuracy and consistency across all filings and records that intersect with immigration status.
This article examines the administration’s first year through a practical, fact-based lens. It focuses on documented enforcement trends, executive actions, adjudicatory practices, and litigation developments, while identifying the legal risks those developments revealed. Where policies were proposed, challenged, or only partially implemented, they are discussed as indicators of direction rather than settled law. The aim is to provide lawyers across disciplines with a clear understanding of what changed in practice – and what areas now require heightened caution when advising clients whose legal, financial, or personal decisions intersect with immigration law.
Immigration Enforcement as Governing Policy
One of the most consequential developments during the administration’s first year is the way immigration enforcement priorities have broadened, interior enforcement has intensified, and compliance review has become a recurring feature of interactions between noncitizens, institutions, and the federal government. Having campaigned on the issue, President Trump started his term by issuing several orders on immigration issues.
Over the year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement continued enforcement activity well beyond border settings, contrary to previous practice.[1] Before the current administration, ICE arrests were rarely seen in courts and public places.[2] Now arrests and detentions occur in a range of contexts, including workplaces and routine encounters with government agencies. “Notices to Appear” are issued in circumstances that surprise many individuals, including cases involving people with pending applications or approved petitions. As courts have long recognized, the approval of an immigration petition does not confer lawful status or immunity from enforcement, and the past year reinforced that principle in concrete terms.
Worksite enforcement plays an especially prominent role. Employers across industries face more I-9 audits, document requests, and compliance reviews.[3] In some instances, investigations have been initiated not through physical inspections but through discrepancies identified in data shared across agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service.[4] Employers learned that inconsistencies between payroll records submitted to tax authorities and job information contained in immigration filings could trigger further scrutiny. Even technical deficiencies – such as incomplete forms, outdated documentation, or inconsistent job titles – have proven sufficient to generate penalties or referrals.[5]
Technology significantly amplifies these enforcement efforts. The Department of Homeland Security and related agencies rely on integrated systems linking information held by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of State, Customs and Border Protection, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and state agencies. These systems enable cross-checking of employment data, tax filings, travel history, student enrollment records, and benefits usage. When inconsistencies emerge, cases may be flagged for additional review without any site visit or individualized tip.
For lawyers, what became clear over the course of the year is that immigration enforcement no longer operates in isolation. It now functions as part of a broader compliance environment in which information flows across agencies and is evaluated continuously. Advising clients requires attention not only to immigration filings themselves, but to the consistency of information across employment, tax, educational, and regulatory contexts. Immigration compliance has become an ongoing risk-management concern rather than a discrete procedural step.
Executive Power in Practice: How Authority Is Asserted and Tested
The administration’s first year underscored the central role of executive authority in shaping immigration law. Rather than pursuing comprehensive legislative reform, immigration policy is now driven largely through executive orders, agency memoranda, and enforcement guidance. This approach places renewed emphasis on statutory provisions that grant the executive branch broad discretion over entry, enforcement, and national security determinations.
Presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212(f), which permits restrictions on the entry of noncitizens deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States, featured prominently throughout the year.[6] While this authority has long been recognized by the courts, its continued invocation reinforces how quickly executive action can affect immigration outcomes in practice. Even where particular initiatives were challenged or limited through litigation, the assertion of authority itself had immediate operational consequences for agencies, employers, and individuals.
The administration also has advanced executive initiatives touching on constitutionally sensitive areas, including citizenship at birth. Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was announced by President Trump on Jan. 20, 2025. The executive order sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or present on temporary visas, directing federal agencies to withhold citizenship, passports, and Social Security numbers from these children.[7] Immediately following this order, lawsuits challenging its legality were filed on Jan. 21, and preliminary injunctions blocking its implementation were issued on Feb. 6, 2025.[8] Although executive orders of this nature were promptly met with judicial scrutiny and remain unresolved, their announcement alone created uncertainty for families, hospitals, and state agencies responsible for issuing documentation and determining eligibility for benefits. In practice, lawyers are often required to advise clients in real time on unsettled questions, with the understanding that constitutional disputes may take years to resolve.
Discretionary immigration programs were similarly reassessed through executive and administrative action. For example, on March 25, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security terminated Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan humanitarian parole programs and ended parole and associated employment authorization for beneficiaries admitted under those programs.[9] The notice cited the Immigration and Nationality Act’s grant of authority to the secretary of Homeland Security, emphasizing its “narrow discretionary authority to parole inadmissible aliens into the United States” and stating that the programs are “inconsistent with the Administration’s foreign policy goals.”
Asylum applications were not an exception to this shift, as asylum processing priorities were reviewed through agency guidance rather than statutory change. In February 2026, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the asylum processing and employment authorization waiting period from the statutory minimum of 150/180 days to 365 days, pause the acceptance of initial Employment Authorization Document applications when average processing times exceed 180 days, and impose additional eligibility and procedural requirements, all through internal agency guidance and policy memoranda.[10]
While not every proposed adjustment has been fully implemented or sustained (such as changes to asylum initial Employee Authorization Document timelines), the pattern of review highlights the extent to which discretionary protections depend on executive priorities and are therefore vulnerable to significant shifts.
For practitioners, the lesson of the first year is not that executive initiatives uniformly prevailed, but that executive power – once exercised – reshapes the legal landscape immediately. Legal practitioners and clients feel the impact of guidance, enforcement posture, and adjudicatory standards long before courts issue final rulings. For example, following the issuance of Executive Order 14160, lawsuits were promptly filed and preliminary injunctions issued, yet the executive order signaled a broader shift in immigration policy and enforcement with immediate and long-term operational consequences. Hospitals, state vital records offices, and federal agencies had to seek guidance and adjust policies regarding birth certification and documentation reflecting widespread uncertainty.
Executive orders force legal practitioners to face the necessity of advising clients on real-time developments, including looming expiration of temporary protected status, stricter citizenship eligibility requirements, extended processing times, and the challenges posed by an influx of clients navigating incomplete and evolving information within a suddenly uncertain legal landscape, in which executive orders and agency guidelines were issued, paused, amended, and left in legal limbo pending judicial resolution. The consequences of these rapid shifts are difficult to quantify, yet their effects are readily observable in news reporting and in the daily lives of immigrants. For many, the question is immediate and tangible: if not today, what will happen to me tomorrow? Effective counseling therefore requires attention to how authority is being applied in practice, alongside close monitoring of litigation that may later constrain or redirect executive action.
Employment-Based Immigration: Heightened Scrutiny and Compliance Reality
Employment-based immigration did not change dramatically by statute during the administration’s first year, but it was meaningfully affected by adjudicatory trends and enforcement practices that reshaped how employers plan, hire, and retain foreign talent. For many organizations, what had once been viewed as a routine administrative process became a more complex compliance exercise.[11]
H-1B and L-1 adjudications have continued under existing legal standards, yet practitioners observed sustained scrutiny of job duties, wage levels, and employer-employee relationships. Requests for Evidence remained common, particularly in cases involving third-party worksites, smaller or emerging companies, or roles that did not fit neatly into established occupational categories. Adjudicators focused closely on whether job descriptions accurately reflected day-to-day duties and whether wage levels aligned with those duties.
Compliance review reinforces these trends. Site visits and post-approval inspections examine whether actual employment conditions matched representations made in filings. In practice, discrepancies – such as changes in work location, reporting structure, or job responsibilities – can trigger further inquiry even where petitions had already been approved.
Permanent residence pathways were similarly affected. Permanent labor certifications and immigrant petitions are now subject to extended processing times and increased evidence requests, with closer examination of recruitment practices, business necessity arguments, and employer financial documentation. For employers and sponsored employees alike, these delays complicate workforce planning and retention decisions.
The willingness to revisit longstanding aspects of employment-based immigration through executive interpretation reinforces the importance of cautious planning. Public debate and litigation during the year concerning potential restructuring of employment-based programs served as an additional signal of risk, even where proposals were not implemented as binding law.[12] A presidential proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” effective Sept. 21, 2025,[13] introduced a $100,000 fee for each H-1B visa application from overseas. Effective Feb. 27, 2026, DHS finalized a rule replacing a longstanding random H-1B lottery with a weighted salary system where applicants with higher prevailing wages will have a better chance of being selected for the H-1B quota.[14]
Concrete practice experiences illustrate these dynamics. Employers are encountering enforcement inquiries after discrepancies surfaced between payroll records submitted to tax authorities and wage information listed in visa petitions.[15] Multinational companies face delays when L-1 petitions are subjected to extended review of corporate structure and specialized knowledge claims. These outcomes are driven not by new legal requirements, but by more exacting application of existing ones.
For corporate and in-house counsel, what became apparent over the course of the year is that employment-based immigration now requires earlier planning, tighter documentation discipline, and realistic expectations regarding timing and scrutiny. Treating these filings as routine or low risk is no longer a viable approach.
Family-Based Immigration and Consular Processing: Predictability Erodes
Family-based immigration remained grounded in the same statutory framework during the administration’s first year, yet the experience of families seeking reunification reflects increased scrutiny and diminished predictability. These changes affect not only immigration practitioners, but also family lawyers and others advising clients whose personal decisions intersect with immigration status.
Adjudications of marriage-based and immediate-relative petitions continue to emphasize the bona fides of relationships. Over the course of the year, practitioners observed more frequent requests for additional documentation and interviews that delve deeply into financial integration, shared residence, and the consistency of personal histories. Waivers in green card marriage cases have become rare. While fraud prevention has always been part of the process, its application became more exacting, resulting in longer adjudications even in cases involving long-established relationships.
Consular processing adds another layer of uncertainty. Administrative processing following interviews became increasingly common, extending wait times with limited transparency regarding resolution. In some cases, applicants are required to process visas in their country of nationality rather than in third countries where they reside or work, increasing logistical and financial burdens for families.
A recurring issue throughout the year was the disconnect between petition approval and legal security. Approval of an I-130 petition does not confer lawful status, prevent detention, or bar the initiation of removal proceedings. In practice, individuals with pending or approved family petitions have encountered enforcement action following travel, background checks, or routine interactions with government agencies such as interviews with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. These outcomes reinforce the need for careful counseling regarding the limits of family-based filings.
Public-charge considerations also feature more prominently in adjudications. Officers frequently request detailed financial documentation addressing income stability, assets, and support arrangements. The new rule asserts that immigrants who cannot be self-sufficient or supported by family or private entities should not be granted permanent status. However, the rule lacks guidelines for applying a public-charge test and leaves the determination up to government officials. Consulates have been instructed to consider the age and health of visa applicants in deciding if someone is likely to become a public charge despite not having the training to determine how health conditions and past benefit use predict future self-sufficiency. While the governing legal standards did not change by statute, their application requires thorough preparation and realistic client counseling.
For lawyers advising families, the experience of the first year made clear that family-based immigration no longer offers the predictability it once did. Clients must be counseled candidly about processing delays, enforcement exposure, and the practical risks that exist even where eligibility appears straightforward.
Humanitarian Programs and Discretionary Relief: Fragility in Practice
Humanitarian immigration programs are grounded in statute, but their operation depends heavily on executive discretion. The administration’s first year brought renewed attention to this reality, as discretionary relief mechanisms were reassessed, narrowed, or applied with increased caution. The termination of Temporary Protected Status programs for vulnerable communities ended work authorization and status for thousands of individuals. According to a Congressional Research Service report, as of March 2025, approximately 1.3 million foreign nationals from 17 countries were covered by temporary protected status programs.[16] Among the largest groups, 605,015 Venezuelan, 330,735 Haitian, 51,225 Honduran and 2,910 Nicaraguan as well as 3,860 Syrian nationals were protected under TPS. Many of these nationals’ TPS designations were repeatedly extended for years, and in some cases decades. They now face the prospect of being forced to depart the United States with pending legal challenges offering only temporary relief in the face of mounting uncertainty. For individuals and institutions that rely on these programs, the year underscored how quickly humanitarian protection can become uncertain.
Asylum adjudication continued under existing legal standards, yet the process has become slower and more exacting. Credible-fear screenings, merits determinations, and procedural reviews reflect heightened scrutiny, contributing to growing backlogs and prolonged uncertainty for applicants. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Trump administration all but ended refugee resettlement and sharply curtailed asylum processing, paused decisions on many asylum cases, and terminated humanitarian parole programs that previously provided temporary protection from deportation.[17] These policy shifts slow access to humanitarian protection relative to prior years. Litigation concerning asylum procedures, expedited removal, and access to hearings became more active, reinforcing that asylum law is shaped as much by judicial oversight as by agency practice.
Humanitarian parole continued to function as a discretionary, case-by-case mechanism. While parole has always been understood as temporary, developments during the year reinforced how dependent it is on executive priorities. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to terminate “all categorical parole programs” that conflicted with his immigration priorities. This order specifically targeted humanitarian parole programs that allowed nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter and reside temporarily in the U.S. with work authorization – programs that previously facilitated lawful entry and work for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Public debate and litigation surrounding parole programs underscore the breadth of executive authority to grant, limit, or rescind such relief, leaving beneficiaries with limited recourse when policies shift.
For criminal defense attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and social-service providers, these developments can have significant consequences. Clients who rely on humanitarian relief for stability often face narrowing options and increased enforcement exposure. The first year made clear that humanitarian programs, while critical, are among the most legally fragile areas of immigration law and require ongoing monitoring and contingency planning.
Business, Investor and Trade Immigration: Immigration as Transactional Risk
Business and investment-based immigration categories are often viewed as relatively stable, because they rest on long-standing statutory and treaty frameworks. Over the administration’s first year, however, these categories demonstrated how sensitive even established pathways are to adjudicatory posture and enforcement emphasis. For corporate and transactional lawyers, immigration status increasingly emerged as a material operational risk.
E-2 treaty investor adjudications continued under existing standards, but practitioners observed more exacting review of source-of-funds documentation, business structure, and operational control.[18] Applicants are routinely asked to provide extensive financial records, including multi-year tax filings, banking histories, and evidence tracing investment capital through multiple entities. Interviews became longer and more detailed, and extensions of status are more likely to require in-person adjudication rather than paper review. For investors operating active businesses, this reduces predictability and complicates long-term planning.
EB-5 immigrant investor cases reflect similar trends.[19] While the statutory framework remains intact, adjudications place greater emphasis on lawful source and path of funds, regional center compliance, and project documentation. Processing delays affect project financing timelines and investor expectations, introducing uncertainty into development and capital planning.
Trade-based categories such as TN and E-3 visas remain available, but adjudications reflect closer scrutiny of job duties, credentials, and employer legitimacy. Outcomes at ports of entry and consulates are sometimes inconsistent, reinforcing the importance of precise documentation and advance legal preparation.
Immigration issues also arose indirectly in transactional contexts. Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings raised questions about visa portability, successor-in-interest obligations, and the impact of corporate changes on foreign national employees. In some matters, the immigration status of key personnel became a factor in deal timing, risk allocation, or valuation.
What became evident over the course of the year is that business immigration cannot be treated as an ancillary concern. For companies and investors, immigration status affects continuity, compliance, and execution. Lawyers advising in these areas must identify the possible negative or positive consequences of immigration on any legal activity early on and integrate them into broader strategic planning.
Students, Scholars, and Educational Institutions: Compliance as Governance
International students and academic institutions experienced a noticeable shift during the administration’s first year, not through elimination of student visa programs, but through increased oversight and compliance expectations. In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard University’s certification to enroll international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, a decision that would have prevented Harvard from hosting or enrolling foreign students. This action endangered the legal status of about 6,700 international students at the university and triggered a lawsuit by Harvard alleging retaliation and violations of constitutional and administrative law.[20] For education counsel and institutional advisors, immigration compliance increasingly became a core governance issue rather than an administrative afterthought.
Student visa adjudications continued under existing classifications, but processing delays and expanded vetting affected enrollment and financial planning, and student mobility. Consular interviews are more frequent, and applicants face increased questioning regarding academic intent, financial resources, and post-study plans. Security and background checks contribute to delays that disrupt academic schedules and research activities.[21]
Institutions faced heightened responsibility to maintain precise compliance with reporting obligations, particularly under the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. Errors or delays in reporting enrollment changes, employment authorization, or address updates carried more serious consequences than in prior years. In practice, issues that once resulted in corrective action now risked status violations or the need for reinstatement filings.
For students, these developments reduced flexibility. Decisions about travel, employment, or program changes require careful legal review. For universities, the experience of the first year underscores the need for robust internal systems, staff training, and coordination across academic and administrative units.
The broader implication is that student immigration now operates within a compliance-intensive framework. Lawyers advising educational institutions or students must approach immigration status as an ongoing regulatory obligation rather than a one-time admissions issue.
Litigation and the Courts: Immigration Law Shaped in Real Time
The administration’s first year reinforced the central role of the federal courts in shaping immigration law. Executive and administrative actions routinely triggered litigation, and judicial intervention often determined how – and whether – policies were implemented. As a result, immigration law during this period has evolved in real time, influenced as much by court orders as by agency guidance.
Administrative Procedure Act challenges featured prominently. Plaintiffs contested agency actions alleged to exceed statutory authority, depart from prior policy without adequate explanation, or fail to follow required procedures. For example, after the administration began mass terminations of international students’ Student and Exchange Visitor Information System records and visa status in early 2025, numerous plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging those actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the government failed to provide explanation, notice, or lawful justification – classic Administrative Procedure Act grounds for claiming arbitrary and capricious agency action.[22] Courts found repeatedly that neither of the stated reasons for termination was permitted under applicable regulations, rendering the decisions arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).[23] Courts responded with a range of outcomes, including nationwide injunctions and geographically limited relief.[24]
Constitutional claims also played a significant role. Executive initiatives affecting entry, citizenship, and enforcement priorities prompted challenges grounded in due process and equal protection principles. While many of these cases remain unresolved, their pendency alone influenced agency behavior and client decision-making. Lawyers frequently find themselves advising clients under standards that are subject to change on short notice.
Beyond high-profile challenges, individual litigation increased. Mandamus actions have become a more common tool for addressing prolonged adjudication delays involving employment authorization, adjustment of status, and other benefits. Habeas corpus petitions continue to serve as an essential mechanism for challenging detention practices, particularly in cases involving prolonged custody.[25]
Practice Lessons for Lawyers Across Disciplines
Taken all together, the developments of the administration’s first year yield several lessons relevant to lawyers across practice areas.
First, immigration status must now be treated as a material legal consideration in a wide range of matters. Corporate transactions, employment agreements, criminal plea negotiations, family law settlements, academic admissions, and real estate transactions may all be affected by immigration exposure. Early identification of these issues is essential, as delayed recognition often limits available options.
Second, approval does not equal security. The past year demonstrated repeatedly that approved petitions and pending applications do not insulate individuals from enforcement action. Continuous vetting and data-driven review mean that immigration status is subject to ongoing scrutiny. Lawyers must counsel clients accordingly, particularly with respect to travel, compliance, and criminal exposure.
Third, executive authority shapes practice even while contested. Litigation may ultimately constrain or overturn particular initiatives, but policies often affect outcomes long before courts issue final decisions. Lawyers must advise clients based on how the law is being applied in practice, not solely on anticipated judicial outcomes.
Fourth, interdisciplinary collaboration is no longer optional. Non-immigration lawyers must recognize when matters implicate immigration law and involve specialized counsel promptly. Informal or incomplete advice regarding work authorization, unlawful presence, or consular processing now carries heightened risk.
Finally, compliance culture matters. Clients who maintain consistent documentation, accurate reporting, and disciplined internal processes are better positioned to navigate a data-driven enforcement environment. Lawyers play a critical role in shaping that culture through proactive guidance and informed risk assessment.
Remzi Güvenç Kulen is the founder of Kulen Law Firm, P.C., an immigration and business law practice.
Endnotes:
[1] Kevin E. Gaunt, Adam J. Rosser, and Sanjee Weliwitigoda, Immigration Worksite Enforcement in 2025: What Employers Need To Know Now, Business Immigration Insights, Hunton (Feb. 13, 2025), https://www.hunton.com/business-immigration-insights/immigration-worksite-enforcement-in-2025-what-employers-need-to-know-now. (“Recent directives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have eliminated previous restrictions on enforcement activities in “protected areas,” giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents broader authority to conduct operations in locations previously considered off-limits.”)
[2] Jennifer M. Chacón, State Courthouses in the ICE Age, State Court Report (May 22, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-courthouses-ice-age.
[3] Wyatte Grantham-Philips, Businesses Face Pressure To Respond to Immigration Enforcement While Also Becoming a Target of It, AP News (Jan. 26, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/immigration-businesses-enforcement-ice-ddd91c3c7e7feb7e27e0e2b02b412e90.
[4] Immigration Forum, IRS & ICE Immigration Data-Sharing Agreement: Explainer (May 20, 2025), https://forumtogether.org/article/irs-ice-immigration-data-sharing-agreement-explainer.
[5] WorkBright, 2026 Form I-9 Fines and Penalties at a Glance, Feb. 13, 2026, https://workbright.com/blog/2026-i-9-fines-penalties-how-to-reduce-risk.
[6] American Immigration Lawyers Association, Think Immigration: DC Court Holds Firm Against Trump Attempt To Use 212(f) To End Asylum at Border, AILA Blog (July 28, 2025), https://www.aila.org/library/think-immigration-dc-court-holds-firm-against-trump-attempt-to-use-212-f-to-end-asylum-at-border.
[7] American Immigration Lawyers Association, Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship, AILA Blog (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.aila.org/library/think-immigration-dc-court-holds-firm-against-trump-attempt-to-use-212-f-to-end-asylum-at-border.
[8] Nate Raymond, US Judge Accuses Trump of Ignoring Rule of Law To Curb Birthright Citizenship, Reuters (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-accuses-trump-ignoring-rule-law-curb-birthright-citizenship-2025-02-06/.
[9]Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (March 25, 2025) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05128/termination-of-parole-processes-for-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-and-venezuelans.
[10] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants, 91 Fed. Reg. 8618 (Feb. 23, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/23/2026-03595/employment-authorization-reform-for-asylum-applicants.
[11] Allen Smith, 2025 Has Brought Sweeping Changes to Employment Law, HR, SHRM (Dec. 3, 2025), https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/2025-has-brought-sweeping-changes-to-employment-law-hr.
[12] See Federico M. Maciá, New Employment-Based Immigration Executive Actions Restricting Eligibility and Enhancing Enforcement, Carlton Fields (Sept. 29, 2025), https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2025/new-employment-based-immigration-executive-actions-restricting-eligibility-and-enhancing-enforcement.
[13] Presidential Proclamation: Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers (Sept. 19, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/.
[14] Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap Subject H-1B Petitions, 90 Fed. Reg. 60864 (Dec. 29, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/29/2025-23853/weighted-selection-process-for-registrants-and-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b.
[15] Fisher Phillips, New IRS and SSA Data-Sharing Efforts Raise Immigration Stakes for Employers: 5 Action Items To Address Risk, April 17, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-irs-and-ssa-data-sharing-efforts-raise-immigration-stakes.
[16] H.R. Rep. No. RS20844 (March 2025).
[17] Sarah Pierce and Jessica Bolter, Dismantling and Reconstructing the U.S. Immigration System: A Catalog of Changes under the Trump Presidency, Migration Policy Institute (July 2020), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/MPI_US-Immigration-Trump-Presidency-Final.pdf.
[18] Global Immigration Partners, E-2 Visa Insights for 2026: What Treaty Investors Need To Know (Dec. 30, 2025), https://globalimmigration.com/e-2-visa-insights-for-2026-what-treaty-investors-need-to-know.
[19] EB5Investors, EB-5 at Crossroads: What 2026 Holds for Investors, Projects, and Policy, EB5Investors.com (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.eb5investors.com/blog/eb-5-at-a-crossroads-what-2026-holds-for-investors-projects-and-policy.
[20] Harvard v. Department of Homeland Security, Document 1, Filed May 23, 2025, https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/05/Harvard-Visa-Complaint.pdf.
[21] See Christina Gatti, Trump’s Executive Actions Are Getting Challenged as ‘Arbitrary.’ What Does That Mean? NPR, Feb. 8, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/08/g-s1-47098/trump-arbitrary-lawsuits-gender-executive-actions.
[22] Student Doe v. Noem, 2025 WL 1134977 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025); Isserdasani v. Noem, 2025 WL 1118626 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 15, 2025); Roe v. Noem, 2025 WL 1114694 (D. Mont. Apr. 15, 2025).
[23] Student Doe v. Noem, 2025 WL 1134977; Isserdasani v. Noem, 2025 WL 1118626.
[24] Doe v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-03140 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025).
[25] Michelle Morgante and Katie Hall, Judges Push Through ‘Avalanche’ of Immigration-Related Caseloads Slamming Federal Courts, Law.com, Feb. 13, 2026, https://www.law.com/2026/02/13/judges-push-through-avalanche-of-immigration-related-caseloads-slamming-federal-courts. (The “number of habeas corpus petitions filed by immigrant detainees jumped by nearly 1,500% nationwide.”)
