A recent reminder to international travelers that the contents of their phone may be subject to inspection when entering the United States came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In United States v. Eta, No. 25-1891 (7th Cir. July 6, 2026), the court held that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may conduct a manual search of a traveler’s cell phone at the border without a warrant or individualized suspicion under the well-established border search exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Background

Daniel Eta was under investigation for allegedly leading a transnational cyber fraud and money laundering scheme. Federal authorities stopped him on his return to the United States from Nigeria, and CBP officers manually searched three cell phones he was carrying upon arrival at Atlanta’s airport. The search uncovered evidence later used in the government’s prosecution.

Eta argued that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and sought to suppress the evidence. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument.

Seventh Circuit Decision

Relying on its prior decision in United States v. Mendez, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a manual review of a traveler’s electronic device is a routine border search. Because the search occurred at the border, CBP did not need a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion, the court stated.

Why This Matters

Today, phones can contain years of emails, text messages, social media activity, photographs, travel records, and business communications. The Eta decision underscores that travelers entering the United States have reduced privacy expectations at the border, and CBP officers retain broad authority to inspect electronic devices, without a warrant and without individualized suspicion.

For visa holders, permanent residents, and foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States, information found on a device could prompt additional questioning or scrutiny regarding prior travel, employment, immigration history, or representations made in immigration filings.

With electronic devices storing more personal and professional information than ever before, this evolving area of law merits close attention from immigration attorneys and international travelers.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist in answering questions specific to your organization’s situation.

The Department of State has announced a significant restructuring of visa operations across Africa, effective Aug. 1, 2026. Under this initiative, routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing at certain U.S. embassies and consulates will be consolidated into designated regional visa processing hubs or centers. According to the Department of State, this realignment is intended to promote greater consistency in visa screening, vetting, and adjudication, while aligning resources with U.S. foreign policy and security priorities.

Key Changes

Beginning Aug. 1, 2026, routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services will discontinue at the following 25 posts:

  1. Antananarivo
  2. Abuja
  3. Asmara
  4. Bamako
  5. Banjul
  6. Brazzaville
  7. Bujumbura
  8. Conakry
  9. Cotonou
  10. Durban
  11. Freetown
  12. Gaborone
  13. Harare
  14. Juba
  15. Libreville
  16. Lilongwe
  17. Lusaka
  18. Maputo
  19. Maseru
  20. Mbabane
  21. N’Djamena
  22. Niamey
  23. Nouakchott
  24. Ouagadougou
  25. Windhoek

Applicants from these countries will be required to schedule visa appointments and pay applicable fees through the designated regional visa processing hubs listed below.

Regional Visa Processing Hubs

Routine visa services will be centralized at the following U.S. embassies and consulates:

  1. Abidjan
  2. Accra
  3. Addis Ababa
  4. Cape Town
  5. Dakar
  6. Dar es Salaam
  7. Djibouti
  8. Johannesburg
  9. Kampala
  10. Kigali
  11. Kinshasa
  12. Lagos
  13. Lomé
  14. Luanda
  15. Malabo
  16. Monrovia
  17. Nairobi
  18. Port Louis
  19. Praia
  20. Yaoundé

Impact on Embassies, Consulates

This realignment does not close any embassy or consulate. Posts affected will remain operational and will continue providing limited/selected consular services.

Many posts will continue to offer:

  • American Citizen Services (ACS)
  • Limited nonimmigrant visa services

The Department of State has noted that Bangui will provide emergency ACS services only. Additionally, there are currently no consular operations in Bangui or Khartoum.

Guidance for Current Applicants

Applicants with Existing Appointments

Applicants who already have visa appointments scheduled at affected posts should monitor their email for country-specific instructions from the Department of State regarding appointment transfers, rescheduling procedures, or other case-related instructions.

MRV Fee Considerations

Applicants who have already paid the Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee at a post transitioning to limited visa services must schedule an appointment by July 31, 2026. According to the Department of State, MRV fees will not be refunded if an appointment is not scheduled before the transition date.

Although affected embassies and consulates will remain open and continue providing certain services, most routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications will be processed through regional centers. Applicants should review their case status carefully, monitor communications from the Department of State, and plan for potential travel to a regional visa hub when scheduling future visa appointments.

Because this realignment may significantly affect visa processing logistics, applicants and sponsoring employers should prepare for possible additional travel requirements, increased costs, appointment scheduling adjustments, changes in processing timelines, and potential delays associated with scheduling appointments, obtaining travel documents, and coordinating travel to regional processing locations.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

The Department of Homeland Security has published a final rule replacing the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework for F-1 academic students and J-1 exchange visitors with fixed periods of admission. Effective Sept. 15, 2026, the rule also establishes a new extension of stay process administered by USCIS for individuals who need additional time to complete their academic or exchange programs. Please see our full legal update for more analysis, insights and implications.

Takeaways

  • Federal courts have temporarily blocked or postponed TPS terminations for, Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen that were scheduled to end between November 2025 and May 2026.
  • TPS beneficiaries from these countries retain legal status and work authorization, for now.
  • Employers should review affected Form I-9s and complete Supplement B reverification, where required, using the applicable court-ordered employment authorization extension date.

Due to ongoing litigation and court-issued stays, TPS beneficiaries from the following countries continue to maintain TPS status and employment authorization while litigation are pending:

  • Burma (Myanmar)
  • Ethiopia
  • Somalia
  • South Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

As a result:

  • TPS beneficiaries from the above countries retain their legal status.
  • Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) in categories A12 and C19 remain valid and extended.
  • USCIS will continue to verify TPS-related employment authorization.
  • E-Verify remains available for employment eligibility verification consistent with the updated TPS guidance.

(A12 – Granted TPS and issued an EAD based on approved Temporary Protected Status; C19 – Applicant for TPS or an individual whose TPS-related employment authorization is connected to a TPS application process. USCIS treats both A12 and C19 as TPS-related categories for employment verification and automatic extensions.)

Most of these court actions are tied to broader litigation and are expected to be revisited following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026, decision in Mullin v. Doe[MS1] , No. 25-1083.

July 17, 2026, USCIS and E-Verify guidance replaces earlier placeholder dates for these countries and provides employers with interim compliance instructions while the litigation continues. Once the district court injunctions are lifted and DHS implements the TPS termination notices, TPS-based employment authorization for affected beneficiaries will likely end, absent further judicial or agency action. TPS and work authorization now remains extended by court order until:

  • Somalia – 7/24/26
  • Syria – 7/24/26
  • Yemen – 7/24/26
  • Burma (Myanmar) – 7/27/26
  • Ethiopia – 7/30/26
  • South Sudan – 7/30/26

Employer Compliance Considerations

Employers with employees whose TPS-related employment authorization has been extended pursuant to these court orders should review their Form I-9s to determine whether reverification is necessary.

Consistent with recent USCIS and E-Verify guidance, employers updating Form I-9 should:

  • Complete Supplement B (Reverification and Rehire), if applicable;
  • Record the applicable employment authorization expiration date reflected in the chart;
  • Enter a notation such as “EAD EXT Court Order” or “Extended by Court Order” in the Additional Information field to document the basis for the extension; and
  • Retain supporting documentation related to the automatic or court-ordered extension with the employee’s Form I-9 records.

Employers should not request additional documents beyond those required for I-9 compliance and should continue to apply standard anti-discrimination and document acceptance rules.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional guidance becomes available.

Takeaways

  • Colorado’s new HB26-1283 prohibits employers from confiscating or improperly retaining government-issued identification documents, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
  • The law does not change employers’ federal Form I-9 obligations, but it does require Colorado employers to provide a written notice and obtain a written acknowledgement during the I-9 process.
  • Employers should review onboarding, I-9, and document-handling procedures and train HR personnel on the law’s new requirements.

Colorado has enacted House Bill 26-1283, “Protections Regarding Seizures of Identification Documents,” establishing new restrictions on how employers may handle government-issued identification documents. The law takes effect on June 3, 2026 and creates an additional compliance consideration for employers conducting onboarding and employment eligibility verification.

At its core, HB26-1283 prohibits an employer or its agents from demanding, confiscating, retaining, or otherwise requiring employees, applicants, migrant workers, seasonal workers, or other individuals seeking work to surrender a government-issued identification document, subject to limited exceptions established by law. The statute is broadly written and applies to a wide range of employment relationships.

HB26-1283 does not prohibit employers from examining original government-issued identity documents or making copies when permitted by law. Rather, it permits employers to temporarily retain an original government-issued identification document for up to 10 hours to verify employment eligibility and make a copy. Employers may also retain copies of those documents as otherwise permitted by law.

Importantly, there is one additional obligation that will impact employment eligibility verification. When verifying an individual’s employment eligibility, Colorado employers must provide a written notice informing the individual of the statute’s prohibition on confiscating or improperly retaining government-issued identification documents and obtain the individual’s written acknowledgment. This written acknowledgement is then required to be retained in the employee’s employment file.  The statute does not require the notice to adhere to an exact format, and Colorado has not published a model notice to date. Employers should work with counsel to develop a compliant notice and acknowledgment for use during employment eligibility verification.

HB26-1283 creates potential criminal liability—a person who knowingly violates the prohibition commits a Class 2 misdemeanor. The law further provides that certain conduct may constitute a bias-motivated crime if, with the requisite intent and based on an individual’s actual or perceived protected characteristics, a person confiscates an identification document or provides or threatens to provide the document to federal immigration authorities, except where otherwise required or permitted by law. Such violations may constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor, and the statute preserves any other remedies otherwise available under law.

Employers should: review onboarding, I-9, and document-handling procedures to ensure original identity documents are returned promptly after lawful verification. Human resources personnel and managers should understand that while federal law requires employers to examine identity and work authorization documentation during the Form I-9 process, the law does not authorize employers to confiscate or indefinitely retain those documents. Employers should ensure they comply with the statute’s notice, acknowledgment, and record-retention requirements whenever verifying an individual’s employment eligibility.

As states continue to enact worker-protection legislation affecting employment authorization verification practices, employers operating in Colorado should ensure that their onboarding procedures, employee communications, and document-handling practices comply with both federal employment verification requirements and Colorado’s new restrictions.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Takeaways

  • USCIS and E-Verify have issued updated employer guidance for TPS beneficiaries from Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
  • For all seven countries, employers should use July 10, 2026, as the current date for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes.
  • Employers should not assume July 10 marks the automatic end of TPS-based employment authorization, particularly for Haiti and Syria, where litigation and agency implementation remain ongoing.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 decision allowing the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with terminating Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria, USCIS and E-Verify have issued updated country-specific guidance for employers regarding Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance.

The agencies issued separate guidance for TPS beneficiaries from Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Although the litigation affecting each designation differs, each notice instructs employers to use July 10, 2026, for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes.

Notably, employers should not interpret July 10 as the automatic end of TPS-based employment authorization.

  • Haiti and Syria: Although the Supreme Court’s decision permits DHS to move forward with the TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria, USCIS has issued interim Form I-9 and E-Verify guidance while the district court proceedings continue. Once the district court injunctions are lifted and DHS implements the TPS termination notices, TPS-based employment authorization for affected beneficiaries will likely end, absent further judicial or agency action.

Employers with affected employees should:

  • Follow the updated USCIS and E-Verify instructions applicable to the employee’s TPS designation.
  • Use July 10, 2026, for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes, as directed in the agency guidance.
  • Continue monitoring agency announcements and court developments before taking reverification or other employment action based on TPS expiration.

The July 1 USCIS and E-Verify guidance provides employers with interim compliance instructions while the litigation continues. Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional guidance becomes available.

In today’s landmark Trump v. Barbara decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of whether their parents are present in the country unlawfully or temporarily. The Court concluded that Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore cannot be enforced. Read here for further insights and implications.

Takeaways

  • DHS rule cleared by the White House and would replace the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework with fixed admission periods.
  • Extension filings and increased government oversight may create additional administrative burdens and uncertainty for visa holders.
  • The proposal has not been finalized, and the current D/S system remains in effect.

A proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that recently cleared White House review could fundamentally change how international students maintain lawful status in the United States. If finalized, the rule (“Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media”) would eliminate the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework and replace it with fixed periods of admission.

Under the proposal, most F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors would be admitted for no more than four years (or the length of their academic program, if shorter). Individuals needing additional time to complete a degree, change academic levels, or pursue post-completion training would be required to file an extension of stay application with USCIS.

Practical implications include:

  • Greater uncertainty for employers that rely on international graduates, particularly in STEM fields, if students encounter delays or complications obtaining status extensions.
  • Additional compliance obligations for educational institutions, as authority over status extensions would shift from schools and to federal immigration authorities.
  • Increased immigration planning needs for students, employers, and universities to avoid potential gaps in lawful status.

DHS has stated that the proposed changes are intended to strengthen oversight, improve tracking of nonimmigrants, reduce overstays, and enhance program integrity. At the same time, universities, employers, and immigration advocates have expressed concerns that mandatory extension filings could increase processing delays, disrupt degree completion — particularly for doctoral and research programs exceeding four years — and make U.S. educational institutions less attractive to international students.

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget has completed its review of the proposed rule, it has not yet been published in the Federal Register and could be revised or challenged before taking effect. Until then, the current duration of status framework remains in place.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring developments as the rulemaking process moves forward and are available to answer your questions.

Takeaways

  • The U.S. Supreme Court reversed preliminary injunctions preventing DHS from implementing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria.
  • The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of most nonconstitutional challenges to TPS designation and termination decisions.
  • However, the decision itself does not terminate employment authorization or establish new Form I-9 deadlines. Employers should await DHS implementation guidance before acting.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunctions that had prevented DHS from implementing its decisions to terminate TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. Mullin v. Doe, No. 25A952, and Trump v. Miot, No. 25A999 (June 26, 2026.) In doing so, the Court concluded that interim relief was not warranted while the litigation proceeds.

The Court held that:

  • The TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional claims challenging DHS decisions regarding the designation, extension, or termination of TPS; and
  • The plaintiffs challenging Haiti’s TPS termination were unlikely to succeed on their equal protection claim and therefore were not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.

The Court remanded both cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

However, the decision does not establish new employment authorization expiration dates, address the validity of existing TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or provide guidance regarding Form I-9 or E-Verify compliance. Those implementation issues remain subject to future DHS action and guidance.

Until DHS issues additional guidance, employers should:

  • Identify employees who currently rely on Haiti or Syria TPS-based employment authorization.
  • Monitor DHS, USCIS, and Federal Register announcements regarding implementation of the TPS terminations.
  • Avoid taking employment action based solely on the Court’s decision without confirming applicable DHS guidance.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring DHS implementation announcements and provide updates regarding TPS-related employment authorization, Form I-9, and E-Verify compliance as additional guidance becomes available. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Takeaways

  • A federal district court has struck down the $100,000 fee the Trump Administration imposed on certain H-1B petitions.
  • The court ruling could allow affected beneficiaries of approved H-1B petitions obtain visas and travel to the U.S. without having to pay the exorbitant fee.
  • The government is expected to consider appellate options, and employers should continue to monitor developments.

On June 8, 2026, in State of California et al. v. Noem et al. (1:25-cv-13829), a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the $100,000 fee President Donald Trump imposed on certain H-1B petitions constitutes an unlawful tax and vacated the fee in its entirety.

President Trump’s Sept. 19, 2025, Presidential Proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” introduced a new $100,000 fee requirement for new H-1B petitions for foreign workers outside the United States.  The fee was one of several administrative and policy changes the Trump Administration has sought to implement with the aim of restricting and tightening rules surrounding the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program.  The fee was set to expire after one year, if not extended.

In its June 8 decision, the court referenced the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down the President’s tariffs, stating that the president does not have unilateral authority to impose taxes without congressional approval. The court declared the proclamation implementing the $100,000 fee unlawful and vacated the fee in its entirety, effective immediately.

The court also issued declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs but declined to enter a permanent injunction, concluding it was not necessary.

For employers, the practical impact of the court’s decision will depend largely on the outcome of any appellate review and how USCIS responds. However, the ruling vacates the $100,000 fee requirement for impacted H-1B petitions, potentially allowing employers to pursue H-1B sponsorship through consular notification without incurring the additional charge. Employers and foreign nationals who postponed H-1B sponsorship or related immigration plans as a result of the fee may now have options available in light of the court’s decision.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring developments, including any government appeals or further USCIS action.