Tag: Biden administration

Biden Administration to Open New For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center in Pennsylvania

After Pennsylvania’s York County prison dissolved its contract with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) in August, it was announced that a new immigration detention center will be opened in Clearfield County. The Clearfield County Board of Commissioners approved and signed a five-year contract with ICE and the GEO Group.

Clearfield County Immigration Detention Center

The prison, which operates for-profit, will convert the former Clearfield County Prison facility into a detention center to process individuals in violation of federal immigration laws. The prison can house roughly 1,900 immigrant detainees, but due to COVID-19 safety requirements, no more than 800 members will be held. “The beds will hold adults. There will not be any children. Primarily males, with some room for females,” said John Sibel, a Clearfield County Commissioner.

Training for prison employees is due to start soon, and the facility is expected to be in full operation within the next two months. Upgrades to the prison’s fencing and other areas will be underway soon.

GEO Group Detention Center and Clearfield County

GEO Group, a private company that ran the former Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, also owns the facility in Philipsburg. The correctional center, a federal prison, was closed in March this year. The closure impacted 300 employees, causing job loss in an already economically disadvantaged area.

Unlike York County, where the facility housed both immigrant detainees and other incarcerated people, the converted facility will house only immigrant detainees. Sibel said, “[t]he signing of the contract guarantees now that property tax revenues will continue to come to Clearfield County, Decatur Township, and the Philipsburg-Osceola School District.”

Safety Concerns for Local Residents

Residents of Clearfield County raised safety concerns over the new facility. However, Sibel reassured them that the GEO Group, which is responsible for running the facility, is in the process of upgrading the perimeter, and will transport immigrants who are released to the locations where they want to return.

“A lot of the folks that will be there, that will go through the processing center, will be there because they violate federal immigration laws, but they won’t necessarily have committed a criminal act… that would have caused them to be in the old prison,” Sibel said.

ICE’s Priorities Guidelines to Be Enforced

The Action field office director Brian McShane said that individuals held in the facility will fall under ICE’s enforcement priorities guidelines. Those priorities are focused on national security, border security, and public safety. “They will have their due process in immigration court if that’s what the law calls for while we go through the process to attempt to effectuate their removal,” he added.

©2021 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

The Biden Administration Takes Aim at Noncompete Clauses

Employers – in light of recent action by the Biden administration, it is time to review and evaluate restrictive covenants being used with your workforce. Courts, state legislatures, and the president are increasingly scrutinizing such covenants, including noncompete agreements.

President Joe Biden campaigned on a platform to eliminate and reduce barriers for employees seeking higher wages and better benefits. As part of this commitment, he promised to prohibit all noncompete agreements, except those essential to protecting a narrowly defined category of trade secrets. President Biden took a concrete step towards making good on this promise on July 9, 2021, by signing a sweeping executive order.

Noncompete provisions have become commonplace. According to data the Biden administration cites, approximately one-half of private-sector businesses require at least some segment of their workforce to execute noncompete agreements, affecting between 36 to 60 million workers in the United States. The Biden administration claims these agreements limit wage growth and hamper employee mobility.

In its wide-ranging executive order, the Biden administration signaled an aggressive approach to curtailing the use of noncompete agreements. The executive order declares “that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.” Of particular interest to many employers is the executive order’s directive to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which encourages the FTC to use its rulemaking authority to restrict and reduce — and even ban — certain types of non-compete agreements. Specifically, it provides that “the Chair of the FTC is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the FTC Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”

The executive order, which builds upon an executive order issued during President Obama’s final year in office, represents a potential sea change to the enforcement of noncompete agreements because it adds a layer of federal considerations to an already complex and ever-evolving array of state requirements.

To be clear, the July 9 executive order does not immediately change anything. The FTC must exercise its rulemaking authority under the FTC Act to accomplish its mission. It could be months or years before the FTC announces any specific rules. And challenges to the FTC’s authority will likely follow whatever rules the Commission ultimately promulgates.

The executive order also directs a newly created White House Competition Council to identify any potential legislative changes necessary to advance the policies outlined in the executive order. This may spur Congress to pass federal legislation in addition to anticipated agency rules. Beyond that, the Biden administration’s aggressive and prominent action on this front may inspire state legislatures across the country to evaluate their laws and potentially pass additional measures regulating enforceability of noncompete agreements. At bottom, this executive order represents an inflection point as the Biden administration aims to increase competition and wages by eliminating what it views as hindrances to achieving those goals.

While awaiting action by the FTC, employers should to take the time to scrutinize and evaluate the terms of restrictive covenants they use to ensure the restrictions are narrowly tailored. Such diligence may increase the likelihood of enforceability. In addition, employers should explicitly state the reasons for the restrictive covenants (e.g., protection of trade secrets, company goodwill, etc.). And, as always, employers need to also keep abreast of any state-law developments.

©2021 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on noncompete clauses, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Expectations for Offshore Wind Under the Biden Administration

President Joe Biden’s arrival at the White House in January was, as customary for any new executive branch leader, met by outsized expectations on the part of supporters and detractors alike. Among the countless areas of public policy set to be affected by the new administration, perhaps no one issue is more anticipated to be in play than energy and environmental policy.

The heightened set of expectations around energy policy began with the campaign, when Team Biden consistently placed climate change issues among its leading priorities — a trend that noticeably continued with Cabinet picks, as nominees for agencies from Defense to Transportation to Treasury cited climate considerations as key factors affecting their respective portfolios. On January 27, 2021, shortly after taking office, the Biden administration released a series of executive actions that included a stated goal of reaching a “carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.”

Perhaps no single industry would be more critical to the realization of this far-reaching carbon-free goal than offshore wind, which has emerged in the United States over the past several years as a potentially game-changing source of clean energy generation, based on its earlier-moving success in Europe and elsewhere. In fact, along the country’s populous coastal areas, where fifty three percent of US residents reside, offshore wind presents the most viable option to build up renewable energy resources in the foreseeable future.

The industry’s significant upside potential has not been overlooked by the Biden energy team. The same late January set of Executive Orders arrived with a pledge to “identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030.” Energy wonks were quick to note that exactly zero megawatts of wind power are currently generated in US federal waters, where the Department of the Interior (DOI) exerts jurisdiction, making the double production pledge either poorly conceived or remarkably easy to accomplish, depending upon your point of view.

In reality, a significant amount of offshore wind power development is underway in US federal waters today. Some 10 projects with a potential 8000 MWs of output are currently in the pipeline along the east coast, all in need of federal approvals to continue forward. On the US West Coast, significant groundwork at the state and federal levels has been underway for years as part of a concerted push to launch a large-scale offshore wind industry utilizing floating turbine technology already deployed in Europe — a necessity on the West Coast given the sharp drop-off of the continental shelf just a few miles offshore.

Looking forward, here’s what we expect to see from a Biden administration federal policy apparatus that seems determined to maximize the potential of offshore wind in short order:

Federal Permitting: Furthest along in the pipeline, the fate of the 800 MW Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts has been widely watched over the past few years. Viewed by many as a bellwether for DOI’s approach to assessing the impacts of offshore wind development, the project appeared to lose momentum in the course of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, unexpectedly finding itself subject to a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that would assess “cumulative impacts that could result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action … combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities, including other future offshore wind activities.” DOI’s move, based on a lofty forecast of 22 GWs of offshore wind along the East Coast in 10 years, confirmed to many that agency leaders deliberately sought to slow industry growth, even as optimists countered that a successful expanded review process would better insulate the promising industry from future litigation.

The Biden administration has quickly moved to turn the page on Vineyard Wind, announcing a restart of the project’s SEIS (pulled in the waning days of the last administration for fear of a negative outcome) timed to coincide with the debut of newly minted Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) head Amanda Lefton, who stated that “robust and timely” permitting would again become regular order. Indeed, only a month later, BOEM followed up by issuing the final EIS for Vineyard Wind. Developers in dire need of predictability should take heart at this early demonstration of timeliness — yet patience will continue to be required as a thinly staffed BOEM makes its way through the significant permit backlog.

Leasing: Beyond timeliness in permitting, the other key federal ingredient needed to instill predictability in the US offshore wind industry involved the issuance of new wind lease areas. For all the aggressive state-level renewables targets that have seeded enthusiasm in offshore wind, little can be done unless the federal government decides to hold lease sales, another action that appeared to be placed on the back burner during the last administration. Currently, developers are eyeing pending lease sales for significant additional acreage in the vicinity of the New York Bight and along the coast of California, both along the central coast at Morro Bay and further north offshore Humboldt County. Under a Biden administration intent on quickly ramping up offshore wind, creating a predictable path forward for development is an obvious priority. Look for release of a predictable, long-range leasing plan for both pending and future offshore wind lease areas as a means to restore investor confidence.

Inter-agency Cooperation: The aforementioned “all-of-government” approach to advancing renewables development stands to find real meaning in relation to offshore wind — starting at the Commerce Department, where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is housed. The jurisdiction of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service gives the agency significant ongoing contact with commercial fisheries interests, many of whom are skeptical about offshore wind development, allowing it to play an important role in interfacing with fisheries and related stakeholder interests. The Department of Energy (DOE) has a significant role to play in advancing the industry’s future; backing research into new offshore wind technologies suited to US-specific conditions could bolster the potential manufacturing and supply chain benefits linked to the new industry. Finally, the Department of Defense (DOD) has significant say over the early planning process surrounding future wind lease area offerings; its ability to reach agreement on siting decisions in a timely manner is key to an efficient leasing process. Look for empowered climate policy leaders within the White House to enforce cooperation among these and other agencies to help streamline development.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

ARTICLE BY George D. Felcyn of Bracewell LLP
For more articles on environmental law, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Transgender Students and Title IX: Biden Administration Signals Shift

President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) on Preventing and Combating Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation on Jan. 20, 2021.[1] While the EO itself is a high level policy statement and does not, in and of itself, immediately change any practices for public school districts, it likely signals a significant shift in how the Biden administration will interpret and enforce the rights of transgender and other LGBTQ students.

What policy is asserted in the EO?

The Executive Order asserts that “[a]ll persons should receive equal treatment under the law without regard to their gender identity or sexual orientation”, including that “[c]hildren should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, locker room, or school sports.” Additionally the EO provides: “[e]very person should be treated with respect and dignity without regard to who they are or whom they love; “[a]dults should be able to earn a living without worrying about being fired or demoted because of who they go home to or whether their dress conforms to sex-based stereotypes”; and “[p]eople should have access to healthcare and be able to put a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.”

The EO bases its reasoning on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s recent case of Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII’s prohibition against “sex discrimination” includes a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The EO asserts that Bostock’s reasoning also applies to other laws, including Title IX, that prohibit sex discrimination.

What does the EO require federal entities to do?

It requires the head of every federal agency (including the U.S. Department of Education) to:

  • Consult with the United States Attorney General as soon as practicable;
  • Review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions under any statute or regulation that prohibits sex discrimination and determine whether those items are consistent with the EO; and
  • Within 100 days of the Order, work with the Attorney General to implement an action plan to carry out the actions identified in its review of its policies, programs, guidance, rules, or regulations and that may be inconsistent with the Order’s stated policy.

How are the stated policy and required action different from the past?

The EO’s language stands in direct contrast with the prior administration’s stance on legal protections for students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. For example, under the prior administration, the U.S. Department of Education took the position that Bostock’s reasoning did not apply to Title IX and specifically reaffirmed its position that public school districts may exclude students from athletic teams based on gender identity and could require students to use bathrooms based on biological sex, rather than gender identity.

In fact, the prior administration issued correspondence explicitly disagreeing with how two federal circuit courts interpreted Title IX. In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and in Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia) and Eleventh Circuit (covering Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) held that public school students have the right, under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Eleventh Circuit, in particular, relied on Bostock to interpret Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination.[2] The new EO rejects the previous administration’s assertion that the Bostock decision does not apply to agency interpretation of Title IX.

While the EO does not specifically rescind any specific order or action, its broad mandate that agencies review existing programs and policies likely will lead to updated guidance, enforcement priorities, and rules implementing Title IX and other laws prohibiting sex discrimination.

What should schools do now?

The current administration will likely implement major changes related to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. This may include requiring schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, and to play on athletic teams that are consistent with their gender identity. Additionally, schools can expect more robust federal agency investigation of complaints of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

In light of Bostock, all schools subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should ensure that their employment policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, in conformity with Bostock. In addition, all colleges and universities, as well as all public K-12 school districts, in the Fourth and Eleventh circuits should ensure that their bathroom policies allow students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.

Finally, colleges and universities, as well as public K-12 school districts, should review their practices and procedures to determine how to best support the rights of transgender students in their programs and activities. They should prepare for greater scrutiny at the federal level and be prepared to defend their practices.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

[2] Note, though, that the School Board of St. Johns County has petitioned for an en banc hearing. That petition has not yet been ruled upon.

Copyright ©2021 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

ARTICLE BY Neeru “Nina” Gupta and Suzann M. Wilcox of Nelson Mullins
For more, visit the NLR Public Education & Services section.

Visas and Immigration in 2021 Under the Biden Administration

The Biden Administration took office on January 20, 2021. Many executive orders have been executed since that date, some of which directly change the manner of handling immigration matters.  However, the U.S. and the world are still dealing with the global pandemic and this directly affects submissions, filings, and consular appointments.  This update provides a list of the latest updates to U.S. visas and immigration matters, as well as what we forecast for the months to come.

  • Immigrant Visa Ban:  The Immigrant Visa Ban that was imposed last year was revoked on February 24, 2021.  Now employment and family based immigrant visas can again be issued by the U.S. Consulates.  See: A Proclamation on Revoking Proclamation 10014 | The White House
  • Entry to the U.S. via a Land Port of Entry from Mexico and Canada:  The entry via land ports remains restricted to essential travel, those on work visas, U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents, and a few other limited exceptions.  The entry restrictions are temporary in nature and as of now are expected to remain in effect through March 21, 2021.  The date has been postponed several times and it is unknown if it will again be postponed.  See:  https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1694?language=en_US
  • Air Travel from Mexico and Canada into the U.S.: Currently there are no limits to air travel from Mexico and Canada.
  • Covid Travel Ban Restrictions: Any travel from Brazil, China, U.K., Ireland, Schengen Countries, and Iran is subject to a National Interest Exception (NIE) waiver from the U.S. Consulate prior to traveling to the U.S.
  • Negative Covid Test:  All inbound passengers are required to obtain a negative Covid test within 72 hours prior to boarding the flight.  This includes air travel from Mexico and Canada.
  • Local Quarantine Rules in the U.S.:  All travelers must also research local travel rules upon arrival in the U.S.  For example New York City and San Francisco have additional quarantine rules upon arrival.
  • Visa Stamping Ban:  The Visa Stamping Ban that was imposed through an executive order from the prior administration for H-1B, L-1, J-1, and H-2B remains in effect. This ban expires on March 31, 2021.  The Biden administration is not expected to extend this ban.  This ban prevents the U.S. Consulates from issuing new visas in this category.  This ban has prevented many executives and highly skilled workers from being able to enter the U.S.
  • Travel from the Middle East:  The U.S. has canceled the blanket travel ban from select countries in the Middle East.
  • H-1B Lottery:  The selection criteria will be the same as last year.   The lottery starts on March 9, 2021 and goes to March 31, 2021.  Winners will be announced on March 31 and then the employer has until June 30, 2021 to file the H-1B petition.
  • H-1B Adjudications at USCIS:  The H-1B Adjudications at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) are expected to return to 2016 standards,  with deference given to prior adjudications, acceptance of multiple educational pathways to an H-1B occupation, etc.
  • USCIS Operational Efficiency: Expected to be a priority going forward.  The Administration is expected to ensure that USCIS operates at an efficient pace so that the backlogs of prior years are not repeated.
  • DACA: The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) has been reaffirmed for both existing DACA recipients and new applicants.
  • Asylum:  The U.S. will again provide opportunities for applicants to apply and have a credible fear interview at the border. If they pass the credible fear interview, they will be allowed into the U.S. to await for their full asylum merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Under the new Administrations some sort of immigration legislation is expected.  Such new provisions are expected to address both labor market and humanitarian needs.  The Administration announced a draft plan on  February 18, 2021.

E-2 Investor Visas:  In recent months Mexican investors have shown an increased interest in the E-2 non-immigrant visa.  As the pandemic slowly subsides, it is hoped that the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez will be able to increase their volume of E-2 reviews.  The firm has a robust E-2 visa practice.

NAFTA TN Visas:  The United States– Canada- Mexico Agreement (USCMA) replaced the NAFTA Agreement.  The new USMCA went into effect on July 1, 2020.   However, the TN occupational list and regulations remained the same. Therefore for select occupations, the TN visa continues to be a quick and efficient way for an U.S. employer to get a Mexican or Canadian citizen on the U.S. payroll.    See:  https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/usmca-chapter-16-appendix-2-professionals

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

ARTICLE BY Greg L. Berk and Laura M. Nava of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
For more, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Biden Administration Issues “Regulatory Freeze” Memo

On January 20, 2021, the administration of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. issued a “regulatory freeze” memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies to ensure that President Biden’s appointees or designees have an opportunity to review any new or pending rules (the Memo). Pursuant to the memo, rules that have been sent to the Office of the Federal Register but that have not yet been published must not be published until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the new administration reviews and approves the rule. In addition, the memo directs department and agency heads to consider postponing rules that have been published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect to seek additional public comment on issues of fact, law and policy raised by the rules and thereafter to take appropriate action.

Although the SEC is not an executive department or agency but rather an independent regulatory agency of the U.S. federal government, there is, some ambiguity about whether the memo applies to SEC rules. In addition the SEC may choose to will voluntarily follow the memo’s directives and recommendations.

The regulatory freeze memo is available here. 

© 2020 Vedder Price
ARTICLE BY John S. Marten, Nathaniel Segal and Jacob C. Tiedt of Vedder Price
For more, visit the NLR Election Law / Legislative News section.

Shining a Spotlight on ESG Disclosures in the Biden Administration

In a period where almost nothing seems certain, it is inevitable that ESG issues will be on the front of the incoming SEC Chair’s mind. Jay Clayton, who resigned as SEC Chairman in December 2020, has urged that one-size-fits-all metrics for environmental disclosures aren’t appropriate given the varied impacts of climate change on different industries. However, President-elect Biden has made clear that climate change will be a high priority for his administration: he has vowed to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement on his first day of office. Thus, the five-member SEC, where three seats are controlled by the President’s party, can be expected to make ESG disclosures a high priority.

Investors are also in part to thank (or blame) for the growing significance of ESG topics in public disclosures. An SEC advisory committee that advocates for investors urged last May that the SEC establish disclosure policies regarding ESG topics, arguing that investors want reliable information on these matters before making investment and voting decisions. And in its 2019 “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation,” even the Business Roundtable—a former champion of “shareholder primacy”—agreed that the purpose of corporations is to promote “an economy that serves all Americans.” While this document has been criticized for not providing more palpable sustainability goals, Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) called it “a welcome step toward a more moral capitalism” and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it “agreed wholeheartedly with the renewed focus.” With the changing of the guard at the SEC, all signs point in the direction of further steps toward “moral capitalism” in the months to come.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

ARTICLE BY Erica T. Jones of Proskauer Rose LLP
For more, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.