FGI Update: This Week’s Summary of U.S. Immigration News

July 02, 2026

Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship Under the Fourteenth Amendment

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6–3 decision reaffirming that nearly all children born in the United States are U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, concluding that the Constitution’s long-established understanding of birthright citizenship remains controlling. While the justices reached the same outcome, they differed somewhat in their legal reasoning, leaving birthright citizenship unchanged and reinforcing that such a fundamental constitutional principle cannot be altered through executive action alone.

Key Points

The Supreme Court rejected the executive order: In a 6–3 decision, the Court invalidated the executive order that would have denied automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born on U.S. soil. Because lower courts had already blocked the order, the ruling preserves the existing legal framework governing citizenship at birth.
The Court reaffirmed the Fourteenth Amendment: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a five-justice majority, concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has long guaranteed citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States, subject only to narrow historical exceptions. The majority relied on the Constitution’s text, its historical adoption following the Civil War, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent interpreting the amendment.
The justices agreed on the outcome but not entirely on the reasoning: Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the judgment but based his reasoning primarily on federal citizenship statutes rather than solely on the Constitution. As a result, five justices held that the Fourteenth Amendment itself guarantees birthright citizenship, while six agreed that the executive order could not stand.
The dissent argued for a narrower interpretation: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, contending that the Citizenship Clause should not automatically apply to every child born in the United States regardless of the parents’ immigration status. The dissent maintained that the historical meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment did not compel the broad interpretation adopted by the majority.
The ruling resolves a major constitutional challenge: The decision ends one of the most significant recent legal disputes over U.S. citizenship by reaffirming a constitutional principle that has existed for more than a century. It also removes uncertainty for families whose children could have been affected had the executive order been allowed to take effect.

What Employers Need to Know

There is no change to employment eligibility rules: Employers should continue treating individuals born in the United States as U.S. citizens under existing immigration and employment verification laws. The decision does not alter Form I-9 procedures or create any new documentation requirements.
Human resources policies remain unchanged: Companies do not need to revise onboarding, payroll, or workforce planning practices because the Court preserved the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship. Organizations with employees from immigrant families can continue applying existing employment policies without interruption.
Questions from employees may increase: Employers may receive inquiries from employees regarding the effect of the ruling on citizenship or immigration status. HR professionals should be prepared to explain that the decision maintained existing law rather than creating a new category of citizenship or changing eligibility to work in the United States.
Immigration enforcement priorities may continue to evolve: Although the Court rejected the executive order, the administration has indicated that it may pursue other immigration enforcement initiatives, including greater scrutiny of alleged “birth tourism” and visa fraud. Those efforts would not change the constitutional rule governing citizenship for children born in the United States, but employers should continue monitoring broader immigration policy developments.

Looking Ahead

Future efforts are likely to shift away from executive action: The Court’s decision makes clear that a president cannot unilaterally redefine birthright citizenship through an executive order. Any future effort to fundamentally change the Citizenship Clause would likely require a constitutional amendment or another significant constitutional development.
The constitutional debate is unlikely to disappear: Although the Court resolved this particular dispute, differing judicial opinions demonstrate that debate over the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment continues. Future litigation could arise over related citizenship or immigration issues even if the basic rule of birthright citizenship remains settled.
Immigration policy will likely remain active: The administration has already suggested that it will focus on alternative immigration initiatives following the ruling, including measures addressing visa abuse and birth tourism. As a result, employers and immigration practitioners should expect continued policy changes in other areas even though birthright citizenship itself remains unchanged.

The Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 decision represents one of the most consequential constitutional and immigration rulings in recent years. By reaffirming the long-established interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and striking down the executive order, the Court preserved automatic birthright citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States while reinforcing that such a fundamental constitutional right cannot be modified through executive action alone.

OFLC Publishes Updated Appendix A Education and Training Categories for the July 2026-June 2027 Wage Year

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) has published the updated Appendix A to the Preamble – Education and Training Categories by Occupational Information Network (O*NET)–Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Occupations for the July 2026 through June 2027 wage year. The annual update aligns occupational classifications with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) wage data and identifies which occupations are considered “professional” for purposes of the permanent labor certification (PERM) program. While the update does not create new prevailing wages or change existing labor certification regulations, it provides important guidance that employers should use when preparing prevailing wage requests and PERM applications.

Key Points

Annual Appendix A update: OFLC updates Appendix A each year to correspond with the new prevailing wage year, which runs from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. The revised Appendix A incorporates the latest O*NET-SOC occupational classifications used in conjunction with current OEWS wage data.
Professional occupation classifications: Appendix A identifies occupations that are generally considered “professional” under the PERM labor certification regulations. These classifications assist employers in determining the appropriate recruitment steps required when sponsoring foreign workers for permanent residence.
Connection to prevailing wage determinations: The updated Appendix A accompanies OFLC’s release of the July 2026–June 2027 prevailing wage data used by the National Prevailing Wage Center. Prevailing wage determinations issued during the new wage year will reflect the updated occupational classifications and 2018 SOC coding structure.
No substantive regulatory changes: The publication of the updated Appendix A does not modify the legal standards governing PERM labor certifications or prevailing wage determinations. Instead, it serves as an administrative update that ensures occupational classifications remain consistent with current federal labor market data.

What Employers Need to Know

Review occupational classifications carefully: Employers preparing PERM applications should confirm that their sponsored positions are classified correctly under the updated Appendix A before initiating the labor certification process. Proper occupational classification helps ensure that prevailing wage requests and recruitment requirements are based on the appropriate regulatory framework.
Expect the new wage-year data to apply: Prevailing wage determinations issued on or after July 1, 2026 will utilize the newly published wage data and corresponding occupational classifications. Employers should verify that any pending or future filings rely on the correct wage-year information before submitting applications.
Coordinate with immigration counsel: Because occupational classifications influence recruitment obligations and prevailing wage determinations, employers should review position descriptions and job requirements before filing PERM cases. Early review can help minimize delays, Requests for Information, or the need to restart portions of the labor certification process.
Continue monitoring OFLC guidance: Although this year’s Appendix A primarily reflects an annual administrative update, OFLC periodically issues additional technical guidance affecting prevailing wages and labor certification procedures. Employers should remain attentive to future announcements that may impact filing strategies or compliance obligations.

Looking Ahead

Annual updates will continue: OFLC is expected to continue publishing revised Appendix A classifications each year alongside updated prevailing wage data. Employers that regularly sponsor foreign workers should incorporate these annual updates into their immigration compliance calendars.
Occupational data will continue evolving: As O*NET and Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational data are revised over time, Appendix A classifications may also change to reflect evolving workforce needs and job descriptions. Employers should periodically review occupational classifications even for positions they have sponsored previously.
Accurate classifications remain critical: Proper occupational classification continues to play an important role throughout the PERM process, affecting prevailing wage determinations, recruitment obligations, and application preparation. Maintaining accurate position descriptions and monitoring annual OFLC updates can help reduce compliance risks and improve filing efficiency.

The publication of the updated Appendix A for the July 2026 through June 2027 wage year is an important annual administrative update for employers participating in the PERM labor certification process. Although the update does not change existing regulations, it aligns professional occupation classifications with the latest prevailing wage data and serves as an important resource for employers seeking to ensure accurate prevailing wage requests, recruitment efforts, and permanent labor certification filings.

D.C. Circuit Upholds DHS Authority to Apply Expedited Removal Nationwide

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a 2-1 decision in Make the Road New York v. Markwayne Mullin, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to continue applying its nationwide expedited removal policy. The court held that DHS may place certain noncitizens into expedited removal proceedings if they cannot demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States for at least two years and otherwise meet the statutory criteria for expedited removal. While the majority concluded that the policy is consistent with federal law and rejected constitutional challenges, the dissent expressed concern that the procedures used by DHS fail to provide sufficient due process protections for individuals encountered away from the U.S. border.

Key Points

Court upheld DHS’s nationwide expedited removal policy: The D.C. Circuit ruled that DHS may continue applying expedited removal to certain noncitizens encountered anywhere in the United States who cannot establish at least two years of continuous physical presence. The 2-1 decision reversed portions of a lower court’s ruling that had partially blocked implementation of the policy.
The ruling applies to specific categories of noncitizens: According to the majority, expedited removal may be used for individuals who are inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or obtained admission through fraud or willful misrepresentation, have not been admitted or paroled, and cannot affirmatively demonstrate two years of continuous physical presence to the satisfaction of an immigration officer. Individuals who satisfy the statutory exceptions or can establish the required period of presence are not subject to the policy.
Majority rejected constitutional challenge: The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the nationwide expedited removal policy violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The majority concluded that DHS’s implementation of the policy is authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act and does not warrant the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
The dissent raised due process concerns: Circuit Judge Wilkins agreed with portions of the decision but argued that the procedures used by DHS do not provide adequate constitutional protections. He emphasized that immigration officers are not required to ask individuals how long they have been in the United States or inform them that establishing two years of continuous physical presence could exempt them from expedited removal.

What Employers Need to Know

The decision expands DHS enforcement authority: Employers should recognize that expedited removal is no longer limited primarily to individuals encountered near the border but may be applied nationwide to qualifying noncitizens. This expanded enforcement authority could affect employees or applicants who lack lawful immigration status and cannot document continuous physical presence in the United States for at least two years.
Employment authorization requirements remain unchanged: The ruling does not modify employers’ existing obligations under the Form I-9 employment verification process or E-Verify requirements. Employers should continue following established hiring and employment verification procedures without making independent determinations regarding an employee’s immigration status beyond those required by law.
Documentation may become increasingly important: Individuals who may be subject to immigration enforcement should understand the importance of maintaining records that demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States, where appropriate. Employers with foreign national workforces may wish to encourage affected employees to consult qualified immigration counsel regarding their individual circumstances.
Employers should monitor evolving enforcement policies: The decision reflects continued judicial support for broader interior immigration enforcement authorities. Organizations with significant immigrant workforces should remain aware of future DHS policy changes and court decisions that could affect enforcement priorities.

Looking Ahead

Additional litigation remains possible: Although the D.C. Circuit upheld the policy, legal challenges concerning the scope of expedited removal and the procedural protections afforded to affected individuals are likely to continue. Future appeals or related cases could further clarify the constitutional limits of expedited removal in the interior of the United States.
Due process issues may receive further judicial review: The dissent highlights ongoing disagreement regarding the procedural safeguards that should accompany expedited removal proceedings away from the border. Courts may continue evaluating whether additional notice or questioning is constitutionally required before individuals are placed into expedited removal.
Interior immigration enforcement may continue expanding: The decision reinforces DHS’s authority to use expedited removal as a nationwide enforcement tool, consistent with current agency priorities. Employers and immigration practitioners should continue monitoring developments as DHS implements the policy and additional guidance or litigation emerges.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Make the Road New York v. Markwayne Mullin represents an important development in federal immigration enforcement by affirming DHS’s authority to apply expedited removal nationwide to certain noncitizens who cannot establish two years of continuous physical presence in the United States. Although the ruling leaves existing employer compliance obligations unchanged, it underscores the administration’s expanded enforcement authority while signaling that questions regarding procedural due process will likely remain the subject of future litigation.

President Trump Nominates Lance Schroyer to Lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

President Donald Trump has nominated Lance Schroyer, a retired Oklahoma State Trooper and former U.S. Marine, to serve as the next Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Announced on June 27, 2026, the nomination comes as the administration continues to prioritize immigration enforcement and expand deportation operations nationwide. If confirmed by the Senate, Schroyer would become the first Senate-confirmed ICE Director since 2017, bringing nearly three decades of law enforcement experience and a background in immigration enforcement partnerships to an agency that has played a central role in the administration’s immigration agenda.

Key Points

Trump selected a longtime law enforcement officer: President Trump nominated Lance Schroyer after praising his nearly 29 years of law enforcement service as an Oklahoma State Trooper and his prior service as a U.S. Marine. Trump described Schroyer as an experienced operational leader who would help advance the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities.
The nomination follows years of acting leadership at ICE: ICE has operated without a Senate-confirmed director since 2017, relying instead on a series of acting directors. Schroyer’s nomination is intended to provide permanent leadership for an agency that has undergone significant organizational and policy changes over the past several years.
Immigration enforcement experience influenced the selection: According to the administration, Schroyer has experience coordinating immigration enforcement efforts through partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and ICE, including participation in 287(g) programs. The administration views this operational background as supporting its broader efforts to increase immigration enforcement and removals throughout the United States.
The nomination has generated mixed reactions: Supporters argue that Schroyer’s law enforcement experience makes him well suited to oversee ICE during an expanded enforcement effort, while critics have questioned his limited experience managing a large federal agency. Reports have also indicated that his selection surprised some senior immigration officials and prompted debate regarding the agency’s future leadership.

What Employers Need to Know

The nomination does not change employer compliance obligations: Schroyer’s nomination has no immediate effect on employers’ responsibilities under Form I-9, E-Verify, or other federal employment verification requirements. Employers should continue following existing immigration compliance procedures unless new regulations or enforcement guidance are issued.
Immigration enforcement is likely to remain a priority: If confirmed, Schroyer is expected to oversee an agency that continues emphasizing worksite enforcement, immigration arrests, detention operations, and removals. Employers, particularly those in industries with large foreign national workforces, should remain attentive to evolving DHS enforcement initiatives.
Worksite investigations may continue receiving attention: Although no new employer enforcement policies accompanied the nomination, the administration has consistently emphasized stronger immigration enforcement across multiple sectors. Employers should ensure that hiring, onboarding, and employment verification practices remain compliant with federal immigration laws.
Senate confirmation remains pending: Schroyer must still be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before assuming the position on a permanent basis. Until then, ICE leadership will continue under its current structure while the confirmation process moves forward.

Looking Ahead

Confirmation proceedings will shape ICE’s future leadership: The Senate confirmation process will provide lawmakers an opportunity to examine Schroyer’s qualifications, management experience, and vision for the agency. The hearings may also offer additional insight into the administration’s long-term immigration enforcement priorities.
Employers should expect continued immigration enforcement initiatives: Regardless of the confirmation outcome, the administration has consistently indicated that immigration enforcement will remain a central policy objective. Additional operational directives affecting interior enforcement, detention, and worksite compliance may continue to emerge over the coming months.
Agency leadership could influence future enforcement strategy: A Senate-confirmed ICE Director may provide greater continuity and stability for the agency after years of acting leadership. That stability could translate into more consistent implementation of enforcement priorities, including coordination with state and local law enforcement partners.

President Trump’s nomination of Lance Schroyer marks an important leadership development for ICE at a time when immigration enforcement remains one of the administration’s highest priorities. Although the nomination does not immediately affect employer compliance obligations, it signals the administration’s continued focus on strengthening immigration enforcement operations and underscores the importance for employers to remain informed about future DHS policy and enforcement developments.

DHS Finalizes Nationwide Foreign National Registration Rule with Key Clarifications on Compliance Requirements

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has finalized a rule clarifying and formalizing the federal foreign national registration requirement applicable to certain noncitizens in the United States. Published in late June 2026, the rule builds on an interim framework that has been in place since April 2025 and confirms how individuals must comply with longstanding statutory registration obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act. While the rule does not fundamentally change who is subject to registration, it refines procedures, clarifies categories of individuals who are already considered registered, and updates documentation that can serve as proof of compliance.

Key Points

Formalization of an existing registration system: DHS has finalized a rule implementing an online registration process for certain foreign nationals who are not already properly documented in federal immigration systems. The framework stems from regulations first introduced in 2025 and is intended to enforce long-standing statutory registration requirements rather than create a new immigration category.
Most lawful visa holders are already considered registered: Foreign nationals who entered with valid visas or possess documents such as Form I-94 records, employment authorization documents, green cards, or parole stamps are generally deemed to have already satisfied registration requirements. These individuals typically do not need to take any additional action under the new rule.
New compliance obligations focus on specific unregistered groups: The rule primarily targets individuals who entered without inspection, lack formal registration documentation, or otherwise fall outside existing systems. Certain Canadian visitors entering by land without an I-94 and individuals who turn 14 while in the United States may also be required to complete registration and, in some cases, biometrics.
Clarification of evidence and documentation standards: The final rule updates what documents can serve as proof of registration, including adjustment of status filings (Form I-485), refugee applications (Form I-590), and other qualifying immigration records. It also clarifies that many individuals with pending immigration applications are already considered compliant with registration requirements.
Enforcement implications for noncompliance remain significant: Failure to register where required, or failure to carry proof of registration, may expose individuals to penalties under existing immigration law. The rule reinforces DHS’s authority to impose fines and other consequences for noncompliance with statutory registration obligations.

What Employers Need to Know

- No change to employer verification obligations: The rule does not alter Form I-9 requirements or employer responsibilities in verifying work authorization. Employers should continue following existing employment eligibility verification processes without additional registration-related steps.

Large share of work-authorized employees are unaffected: Most foreign national employees in lawful status—including H-1B, L-1, F-1 OPT, and green card holders—are already considered registered under DHS rules. As a result, the rule is unlikely to create immediate compliance obligations for employers’ existing workforces.

Potential onboarding questions from foreign hires: Employers may receive questions from employees or candidates about whether they must complete new registration steps. HR and mobility teams should be prepared to explain that individuals with valid immigration documentation are generally already compliant.

Compliance awareness remains important for workforce planning: While the rule does not directly affect employment authorization, it reinforces DHS’s broader focus on immigration enforcement and documentation. Employers with globally mobile workforces should ensure employees are aware of their personal immigration compliance responsibilities.

Looking Ahead

Further DHS clarification and guidance is likely: DHS is expected to continue issuing technical updates and FAQs as the registration system is implemented. Additional clarifications may refine exemption categories or procedural requirements over time.

- Enforcement practices may evolve over time: Although the rule primarily formalizes existing obligations, DHS may increase enforcement activity for individuals who lack proper registration documentation. Future operational guidance may shape how strictly the rule is applied in practice.

Integration with broader immigration modernization efforts: The registration framework is part of a broader set of DHS initiatives to modernize immigration tracking and data collection systems. Additional regulatory changes may continue to expand digital reporting and documentation requirements across visa categories.

The DHS foreign national registration rule represents a formalization and clarification of longstanding immigration registration requirements rather than a fundamental policy shift. While most lawfully present foreign nationals are already considered compliant, the rule strengthens documentation standards and reinforces DHS’s enforcement authority, making accurate immigration recordkeeping and awareness of compliance obligations increasingly important for both individuals and employers.

DHS Proposes Major Rule to Fully Implement EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a proposed rule aimed at formally implementing and codifying the provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, which reauthorized the EB-5 Regional Center Program through 2027. The proposal seeks to convert many existing policies and interim practices into binding regulations, while also tightening oversight, expanding compliance requirements, and clarifying key definitions used in adjudicating EB-5 immigrant investor petitions. A central feature of the proposal is the introduction of updated investment thresholds and enhanced integrity measures designed to increase transparency and reduce fraud within the EB-5 program.

Key Points

Codification of the 2022 EB-5 Reform framework: The proposed rule formally incorporates many provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 into federal regulations. This includes existing policies such as increased site visits, enhanced audits, biometrics requirements, and more structured oversight of regional centers and associated entities.
New investment threshold for high employment areas: DHS proposes establishing a higher minimum investment level of approximately $1.4 million for projects located in “high employment areas,” defined under the rule as areas with unemployment rates at or above 150% of the national average. This would create a distinct investment tier separate from existing standard and targeted employment area categories.
Stronger definitions for EB-5 program requirements: The rule clarifies key EB-5 concepts such as what qualifies as “capital,” how a “comprehensive business plan” must be structured, and when an investor is considered to be actively in the process of investing. It also further defines redeployment rules and reinforces requirements that investment funds remain at risk for the required period.
Expanded enforcement and compliance structure: DHS proposes a formalized enforcement framework that includes increased audits of regional centers, mandatory reporting obligations, document retention rules, and clearer penalties for noncompliance. These measures are intended to strengthen oversight of regional centers, new commercial enterprises, and job-creating entities.
Priority date retention and investor protections: The rule confirms and codifies policies allowing certain investors to retain priority dates under specified circumstances, including cases involving regional center termination or project changes. It also reinforces pathways for investors acting in good faith to preserve eligibility despite program disruptions.

What Employers Need to Know

EB-5 remains primarily investor-focused, not employer-driven: The proposed rule does not directly change employer sponsorship obligations or workforce compliance requirements. However, it may indirectly affect employers that rely on EB-5-funded projects for capital development or infrastructure financing.
Increased compliance requirements for EB-5 projects may affect timelines: Employers involved in EB-5-backed developments may see longer project approval and oversight timelines due to expanded audits, documentation requirements, and site visits. This could impact project scheduling and capital deployment planning.
Higher investment thresholds may reduce investor volume in some projects: The proposed increase in minimum investment levels for certain geographic categories could influence investor participation in EB-5 regional center projects. This may affect the availability of EB-5 capital for employers relying on investor funding for expansion or development projects.
Stronger enforcement may increase project due diligence expectations: Employers and project developers participating in EB-5 structures may need to meet higher evidentiary and compliance standards. This includes more detailed business plans, financial documentation, and ongoing reporting obligations.

Looking Ahead

Public comment period may shape final rule: DHS will accept public comments before finalizing the regulation, meaning key provisions such as investment thresholds and compliance requirements could be modified. Stakeholder feedback from investors, regional centers, and employers will likely influence the final version of the rule.
Final implementation may be phased in: Even after publication of a final rule, DHS is expected to provide transition periods for compliance with new requirements. This may allow existing projects to adjust gradually to updated standards.
Increased regulatory scrutiny is likely to continue: The proposed rule reflects a broader policy trend toward tighter oversight of the EB-5 program following the 2022 reform legislation. Future updates may continue to refine integrity measures and expand enforcement authority.
EB-5 program stability through 2027 remains a key baseline: While the rule strengthens regulatory structure, it operates within the existing statutory authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program through 2027. Any longer-term changes would likely require additional congressional action.

The DHS proposed EB-5 rule represents a significant step in formalizing post-2022 reform policies and strengthening the regulatory framework governing immigrant investor programs. While it does not fundamentally alter the structure of the EB-5 program, it increases investment thresholds in certain categories, expands oversight and enforcement mechanisms, and reinforces compliance expectations for all program participants, signaling a continued shift toward stricter integrity and accountability standards.

U.S. Immigration Alerts