Executive Order Archives - Page 3 of 3

President Trump to Give State of Union Address; Senate to Vote on Ross’ Nomination; Pentagon to Submit Its Anti-ISIS Plan

President Donald Trump is preparing to release another immigration-related Executive Order (E.O.) that is expected to refine a previous directive that banned Syrian refugees from entering the United States and suspended the issuance of visas and admission into the United States for foreign nationals from seven countries of “particular concern.” The President will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday and give a speech expected to focus on the renewal of the American spirit.

The U.S. Congress returns to Washington on Monday, 27 February, with the Senate scheduled to vote that evening on Wilbur Ross’ nomination to serve as Secretary of Commerce. The Pentagon is also set to submit its plan for defeating ISIS to the White House on Monday.

Syria: Combatting ISIS – DoD Plan Completed

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis concluded his first trip to the Middle East on 20 February, a trip that included stops in the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. Pentagon Press Operations Director Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters on Tuesday that Secretary Mattis gained valuable insight as he prepares to make key policy decisions, including submitting the results of a review of the Defense Department’s (DoD) strategy to defeat ISIS to the White House this week.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said of the military-political plan at a Brookings Institution event last week: “In the development of the plan, we have been engaged at every level of the State Department” he said. Chairman Dunford added: “Anything we do on the ground has to be in the context of political objectives or it is not going to be successful.” The intelligence community and the Treasury Department have also participated in development of the plan.

Pentagon Spokesperson Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters on Friday that the Pentagon has supported an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS under both the Trump and Obama Administrations. “An AUMF would make a lot of our congressional authorities clearer, and that thinking has not changed,” Davis said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) recently traveled to Syria to speak with U.S. forces there about the campaign against ISIS, according to his office last Wednesday. His trip comes as U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. Joseph Votel told reporters that the Pentagon is considering whether to deploy additional troops to Syria. Chairman McCain met next with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud on 21 February. The two reportedly discussed regional issues and enhancing U.S. cooperation with the Kingdom.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ranking Member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson dated 22 February that urged the Administration to “ensure Assad, Russia and Iran are made to answer for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria.” While all 10 Democratic Members of the SFRC signed the letter, Republican committee members appeared to be more reluctant in signing. The letter also asks for an update on the Administration’s steps to document war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.

Iranian Naval Exercise Underway

Iran launched naval drills on Sunday, amid increased tension with the United States after the Trump Administration put “Iran on notice.” The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based in the region.

Russia – Washington Scrutiny

Washington and the media continue to focus on increased allegations of Russian meddling in the United States. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-California) said at this point there is no evidence of improper influence with respect to the Trump Administration, adding the House would not engage in a “witch hunt.” Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), who serves as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, cautioned this weekend against some calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the Administration’s alleged ties. Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting an investigation of Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 U.S. election.

Mexico City Trip Readout

Secretary Tillerson and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly met Thursday with several Mexican officials, including Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. According to the State Department, both sides acknowledged that “two strong sovereign countries from time to time will have differences,” while also reaffirming “close cooperation on economic and commercial issues such as energy, legal migration, security, education exchanges, and people-to-people ties.”

Both sides also agreed the “two countries should seize the opportunity to modernize and strengthen our trade and energy relationship.” With respect to border security, the discussion included: (1) dismantling transnational criminal organizations that move drugs and people into the United States; (2) stopping the illicit flow of firearms and “bulk cash” that is originating in the United States and transiting to Mexico; and (3) curtailing irregular migration, which includes securing Mexico’s southern border and supporting efforts to stem the migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Press Secretary Spicer said of the bilateral meetings at the Thursday press briefing:

“Both sides had a candid discussion on the breadth of challenges and opportunities as part of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The conversation covered a full range of bilateral issues, including energy, legal migration, security, education exchanges, and people-to-people ties.”

Peru Bilateral Meeting

President Trump met on Friday with Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who was in the United States to receive an award from Princeton University. In remarks before the bilateral meeting, President Trump said Peru has been a “fantastic neighbor.” President Kuczynski noted: “Latin America needs to grow more, and we’re going to talk about how to do that.” White House readout of the meeting reflected: “President Trump underscored the continued United States commitment to expanding trade and investment ties with Peru and others in the Asia-Pacific region.” The two leaders also discussed the political and economic situation in Venezuela. President Trump also thanked Peru for hosting the 8th meeting of the Summit of the Americas next year.

Human Trafficking – A Priority

President Trump led a listening session on domestic and international human trafficking on Thursday. He acknowledged:

“Human trafficking is a dire problem, both domestically and internationally, and is one that’s made really a challenge [sic]. And it’s really made possible to a large extent, more of a modern phenomenon, by what’s taking place on the Internet, as you probably know. Solving the human trafficking epidemic, which is what it is, is a priority for my administration”

He said he would direct the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, as well as other federal agencies, to examine its resources and determine whether additional resources are needed to combat human trafficking: White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the meeting: “Their expertise [re: meeting participants] will be invaluable to the President as he engages with members of Congress to raise awareness about, and push through, legislation aimed at preventing all forms of the horrific and unacceptable practice of the buying and selling of human lives.”

Foreign Policy Congressional Hearings This Week

On Tuesday, 28 February, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Iraq After Mosul.”
On Tuesday, 28 February, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Issues and Opportunities in the Western Hemisphere.”
On Tuesday, 28 February, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Checking China’s Maritime Push.”
On Wednesday, 1 March, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
On Thursday, 2 March, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Venezuela: Options for U.S. Policy.”

Defense Congressional Hearings This Week

On Tuesday, 28 February, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Hearing on Department of Defense Inspector General Report ‘Investigation on Allegations relating to USCENTCOM Intelligence Products.’”
On Wednesday, 1 March, the House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Cyber Warfare in the 21st Century: Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities.”
On Wednesday, 1 March, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “U.S. Ground Force Capability and Modernization Challenges in Eastern Europe.”
On Thursday, 2 March, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Cyber Strategy and Policy.”

Looking Ahead

Washington is expected to focus on the following upcoming events:

28 February: President Trump to address a joint session of Congress
Mid-March?: Release of the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2018
14-15 March: Chile to host a Pacific Trade Summit in Vina del Mar, Chile
21-23 April: World Bank/International Monetary Fund Spring Meeting in Washington
28 April: U.S. Federal Government funding expires

ARTICLE BY Stacy A. Swanson of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

President Trump Establishes Regulatory Budgets by Executive Order

Amid all of the controversy surrounding President Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigration from seven countries, and his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, another executive order that may be at least as significant in the long run to reining in the administrative state has not received much attention. The Executive Order on “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued on January 30 without much fanfare, did three things: (1) required every agency promulgating any new regulation to get rid of two existing regulations; (2) required that the projected cost to the economy of the regulations being eliminated must be at least as great as the costs of the new one, as computed under standard Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, and (3) authorized OMB to impose a regulatory budget on each agency.

The first point, sometimes called “one in, two out,” has garnered some media attention, but in the long run, the other two provisions limiting regulatory costs may be at least as significant, particularly for the Environmental Protection Agency, which has historically imposed about half the costs of federal government regulation on the economy. But this Executive Order also takes us into new territory and raises a host of legal questions.

The idea of a “regulatory budget” to constrain the costs government imposes on the economy has been discussed since the 1970’s. The basic idea is to adopt Madison’s constitutional concept of “balancing ambition with ambition” to regulate the regulators. However, in the past, establishing a regulatory budget has generally been thought to require legislation. Although proposed on numerous occasions, statutory authority to impose regulatory budgets has never been enacted. It remains to be seen whether the courts will allow a binding regulatory budget to be imposed on agencies by the White House acting alone.

The Administrative Procedure Act specifically creates a cause of action to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld” as well as a right to petition for new rules. How will the courts react when agencies begin to turn down petitions for new rules because there is no room for them in the agency’s regulatory budget, or because the agency judges them to be less important than existing rules that would have to be eliminated to pay for the new regulations?

In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the Reagan Administration unilaterally to rescind an existing rule requiring automatic seat belts. That precedent appears to require not only notice and comment but also a rational basis in the record that will survive judicial review in order to eliminate a legislative rule previously promulgated through notice and comment procedures. What weight will the courts give to agency proposals to eliminate existing rules because they are required to do so in order to promulgate new ones under the Trump Executive Order? And what about emergency rules or rules required by statute? Do those also require elimination of two existing regulations?

Even assuming that the courts do uphold President Trump’s authority to impose the requirements discussed above on agencies and departments “in” the Executive Branch, what about the “independent” agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)? These agencies often consist of multi-member commissions, sometimes with staggered terms and members of different political parties and a statutory prohibition on firing except for good cause. On its face, the Executive Order does not exempt them, but the President’s power to direct them is unclear. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the Supreme Court held that President Roosevelt could not fire the Chairman of the FTC for policy differences. More recently, the Obama Administration issued an Executive Order stating that independent agencies “should” comply with prior executive directives regarding public participation, scientific integrity in the rule making process, and retrospective analyses. A number of independent agencies followed President Obama’s Order, but have been careful to characterize it as “ask[ing]” or “request[ing],” not mandating, agency action.

There are also a host of implementation questions that will presumably have to be answered by the OMB guidance implementing the recent Executive Order. Many regulations, particularly in the environmental area, require large initial capital costs, but much lower costs for on-going operation and maintenance expenses; for example, when installing new pollution control equipment. In assessing whether the costs of the eliminated regulations balances the costs of the new regulations, may the agency take into account the historic costs that have already been incurred (what economists call “sunk costs”), or only the current on-going costs that would be eliminated if those regulations were rescinded (what economists call “avoided costs”)?

More broadly, this Executive Order, as well as prior executive actions relating to the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines and Infrastructure Permitting, provides insight into the strategy that the Trump Administration appears to intend to use to control the so-called “Administrative State.” For years, Presidents have struggled to impose policy direction and control on the actions of agency bureaucrats whom they generally cannot fire due to civil service protections. Past approaches have included the creation of the Senior Executive Service who are subject to dismissal, the OIRA review process for new rules, and the White House “czars” created by the Obama Administration. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Trump Administration intends to try to manage the agencies by Executive Order, a strategy that some legal scholars have questioned as constitutionally dubious if the President directs particular actions as opposed to establishing general principles.

ARTICLE BY E. Donald Elliott of Covington & Burling LLP

New Trump Executive Order to Suspend Entry of Persons from Certain Countries Expected

“Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals” is expected to be the next Executive Order on immigration from the Trump Administration. This Order is intended to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks” and “ensure that those admitted into our country do not bear hostile attitudes toward our country and its founding principles.”

The Order likely will:

Block Syrian refugees from entering the United States for an indefinite period until the President lifts the ban while creating safe zones in Syria to house those awaiting resettlement.
Bar other refugees for at least 120 days while the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 2017 is reviewed and new vetting procedures are in place.
Prioritize claims of religious minorities suffering from persecution (essentially prioritizing claims by non-Muslims).
Reduce the overall number of refugees admitted in 2017 to 50,000 (below that proposed by the Obama Administration).
Suspend entries and the issuance of visas for at least 30 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen while the government reviews its screening processes.
Suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program that allows returning nonimmigrants to extend their visas without appearing for in-person interviews at Consulates abroad.
Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system to enable better tracking of foreign nationals in the United States and prevent overstays.
Collect and make public information on the number of foreign-born individuals who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses, who have been “radicalized” after entry and engaged in terrorism-related acts, and who have committed gender-based violence against women or “honor killings.”

During the contemplated suspension periods, the Order would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to determine what information is needed from applicants’ countries of origin to ascertain whether those foreign nationals would pose a threat to the United States. Further, the Order would direct that foreign nationals from countries that refuse to comply would be prohibited from entry until their country of origin does comply.

ARTICLE BY Forrest G. Read IV

President Seeks $19 Billion and Creates Commission to Address Cybersecurity

President Barack Obama requested $19 billion in his budget for 2017 to address cybersecurity in the United States, $5 billion more than was budgeted for the current year. Today, he issued an Executive Order that will create a commission within the Department of Commerce to be known as the “Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.”

So, what will $19 billion buy? The President’s proposal calls for a number of measures designed to improve and strengthen cybersecurity. Some examples include:

$3.1 billion to update and replace old IT systems, along with a new position in the White House to lead the effort.
About $62 million is allotted for more cybersecurity professionals, including funding scholarship programs to strengthen the pipeline for this much needed human capital.
Amounts for the classified cyber budget for intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency and the CIA.

The Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity under the President’s Executive Order would have as its mission:

To make detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, and local government and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. The Commission’s recommendations should address actions that can be taken over the next decade to accomplish these goals.

The Commission will need to consider recommendations for at least the following:

how best to bolster the protection of systems and data, including how to advance identity management, authentication, and cybersecurity of online identities, in light of technological developments and other trends;
ensuring that cybersecurity is a core element of the technologies associated with the Internet of Things and cloud computing, and that the policy and legal foundation for cybersecurity in the context of the Internet of Things is stable and adaptable;
further investments in research and development initiatives that can enhance cybersecurity;
increasing the quality, quantity, and level of expertise of the cybersecurity workforce in the Federal Government and private sector, including through education and training;
improving broad-based education of commonsense cybersecurity practices for the general public; and
any other issues that the President, through the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), requests the Commission to consider.

These actions are designed to affect both the public and private sectors. Accordingly, businesses need to monitor these activities to ensure compliance and that their efforts are consistent with recognized best practices.

Article By Joseph J. Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Proposed Labor Violation Reporting Rules Target Government Contractors

Proposal makes agency allegations of employment law violations reportable events that could result in denial of federal contracts or termination of existing contracts.

Executive Order 13673 (the Order), signed by US President Barack Obama in July 2014, imposed three new requirements addressing the labor and employment practices of federal contractors and subcontractors: (1) an obligation to report employment law violations, which would be used by contracting officers to determine whether to award a new federal contract or terminate an existing contract; (2) a requirement to provide notices to workers about their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemption or independent contractor status; and (3) a requirement that federal contractors agree that claims arising under Title VII or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment by their employees and independent contractors will not be arbitrated without the voluntary postdispute consent of an employee or independent contractor, with certain limited exceptions.

E.O. 13673 directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council)—which consists of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space, and the Administrator of General Services—to publish implementing regulations through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system. The Order also directed the Department of Labor (DOL) to publish guidelines that address transactions deemed to be reportable employment law violations, as well as how contracting officials should use such reported information to determine whether to award a federal contract (or terminate an existing contract). The Order, while effective upon issuance, expressly applies to all solicitations for contracts only as set forth in any final rule issued by the FAR Council.

On May 28, 2015, the FAR Council published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing E.O 13673.^[1] On the same day, the DOL published proposed guidance.^[2] The proposed rule and guidelines contain many potentially alarming provisions for employers seeking federal contracts, some of which appear to violate contractors’ due process and Fourth Amendment rights. If adopted, the proposals would impose administrative burdens on contractors, increase the complexity of obtaining and keeping federal contracts, and likely lead to an increase in bid protests and litigation.

The proposals offer employers a 60-day period to submit comments in opposition to these provisions. We strongly encourage employers that have or may seek federal contracts to take advantage of this comment opportunity. If you are interested in sponsoring comments, please contact us in the near future; the period for filing comments only runs through July 27, 2015.

Proposed Implementation of the Employment Violation Reporting Obligations

E.O. 13673 requires employers who are prospective awardees of federal contracts to report certain labor law violations that occurred within the prior three years. Awardees of federal contracts must submit reports of labor law violations every six months during the performance of the contract. The reportable violations include “administrative merits determinations,” “arbitral awards or decisions,” and “civil judgments” involving claims or enforcement actions under many federal employment laws.^[3]

The proposed guidelines define “administrative merits determinations” by reference to the specific types of determinations made by a federal enforcement agency, such as the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Reportable determinations also include, broadly, complaints that a federal enforcement agency files and administrative orders issued through agency adjudication. However, complaints that private parties file with enforcement agencies or in court alleging employment law violations would not trigger a reporting obligation.

Under the proposed guidance, “administrative merits determinations are not limited to notices and findings issued following adversarial or adjudicative proceedings such as a hearing, nor are they limited to notices and findings that are final and unappealable.” Thus, contractors will be required to report mere agency allegations, such as OSHA citations, WHD investigation finding letters, OFCCP show cause notices, EEOC reasonable cause determinations, and NLRB complaints. These disclosures are required even if a contractor is challenging an allegation through formal proceedings. If, at the time of the required reporting, the enforcement agency allegation is withdrawn or reversed in its entirety through additional proceedings in the matter, then there is no reporting obligation.

The DOL will publish additional proposed guidelines that address administrative determinations that state enforcement agencies make under laws that DOL deems to be equivalent to the above-referenced federal laws.

The proposed DOL guidelines define “civil judgments” as any judgment or order entered by any federal or state court in which the court determined that an employer violated any provision of the above-referenced employment laws or enjoined the employer from committing a violation. Civil judgments include orders or judgments that are not final and are appealable, and the employer must report such judgments even if an appeal is pending. Consent judgments are subject to the reporting obligation if they contain a determination that an employment violation occurred or enjoin the employer from violating any provision of the employment laws. However, a private lawsuit that a court dismissed without a judgment would not be a reportable event.

The proposed DOL guidelines define “arbitral awards and decisions” as any award or order by an arbitrator or arbitral panel in which the arbitrator or panel determined that an employer violated any provision of the above-referenced employment laws or enjoined the employer from committing a violation. Arbitral awards include awards and orders that are not final and are appealable, and the employer must report such judgments even if an appeal is pending. Arbitral awards and orders must be reported even if they are subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Under the proposed DOL guidelines, the same alleged violation may trigger several successive reporting obligations. Each transaction must be reported even if the same alleged violation was the basis for a prior report. For example, where an initial agency allegation was reported, the same allegation must later be reported if it is sustained through an administrative order, and must be reported yet again if a federal court affirms it in a review action. However, if the initial reported transaction is reversed or vacated in its entirety through later proceedings, there is no obligation to continue to report the initial transaction in any future contract bid.

The proposed FAR regulations simply incorporate the DOL guidelines by reference and do not modify or expand on the definitions regarding reportable events.

Mechanics of the Contracting Process Under the Proposed FAR Rule

Prior to awarding a government contract, a contracting officer is required to make an affirmative responsibility determination that includes a determination that the apparent successful offeror or bidder has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. The proposed rule requires that the contracting officer consider a prospective contractor’s labor violations in determining whether that contractor has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Under the proposed FAR rule, all employers bidding on a federal contract would initially provide a representation that there have been or have not been reportable employment law violations. Thereafter, once the contracting officer has initiated a responsibility determination for the prospective contractor, if the employer has indicated covered employment law violations, that employer would be required to enter detailed information describing the violations in the System for Award Management (SAM), including (1) the employment law that was allegedly violated; (2) the relevant matter or case number; (3) the date that the determination, judgment, award, or decision was rendered; and (4) the name of the court, arbitrator(s), or agency that rendered the decision. Further, the contracting officer would be required to solicit from the employer additional information that the prospective contractor views as necessary to establish affirmatively its responsibility, such as mitigating circumstances; remedial measures, including labor compliance agreements; and other steps taken to comply with labor laws.

The contracting officer would review the data provided, and, in consultation with agency Labor Contract Advisors, would determine whether the employer is a responsible source eligible to receive the federal contract. The proposals contemplate that most entities would not be deemed nonresponsible, but instead would be required to agree to a “labor compliance agreement” as a condition of award of the federal contract. The proposals provide little discussion or framework for labor compliance agreements, apparently vesting broad authority in enforcement agencies, the DOL, agency Labor Contract Advisors, and contracting officers to develop, negotiate, and monitor such agreements. Employers should pay particular attention to these proposals because they would place powers in the hands of federal regulators to extract extra-legal “remedial actions” by leveraging an award or continuation of federal contracts. The outlook for those prospective offerors found nonresponsible is equally grim; the likelihood of successfully challenging contracting officer responsibility determinations in the procurement process is very low given the high level of deference accorded such determinations by both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Moreover, because the proposed regulation’s definition of “administrative merits determinations” effectively includes notices or findings that amount to little more than alleged violations, it is unclear whether GAO or the COFC could readily find a determination of nonresponsibility to be without a rational basis, even if that decision was predicated on alleged violations that, after contract award, may not be proven.

Post-Award Implications of Labor Violations

Employers awarded contracts would be required to enter current information regarding labor violations in SAM on a semi-annual basis. If, based on this information, the Labor Contract Advisor determines that further consideration or action is warranted… click to continue reading Proposed Labor Violation Reporting Rules Target Government Contractors

ARTICLE BY

William E. Doyle, Jr. & E. Ruscus of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Executive Order Provides Sanctions Aimed at Fighting Cyberattacks

On April 1, the president signed Executive Order 13694, which created a new sanctions regime for fighting cyberattacks. This creates opportunities for companies that are facing or may face cyberattacks. The Executive Order provides additional tools for victims of cyberattacks to punish the perpetrators by working with the government. The Executive Order creates framework to allow the government to take action in response to attacks on private companies and take all measures necessary to punish co-conspirators. The Executive Order also creates several issues that individuals and companies with international dealings should consider taking into consideration to avoid potential liability.

The Executive Order grants the Secretary of the Treasury authority to “block” the assets of anyone who conducts or aids “cyber-enabled activities . . . reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States . . . .” The Executive Order also grants the power to sanction any individual or entity that gives support to, assists in anyway, or sponsors such a cyber-attacker. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) will work in coordination with other U.S. government agencies to identify individuals and entities that engage in prohibited cyber activities and designate them for sanctions. Persons designated under this Executive Order will be added to OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in most all transactions with designated individuals and entities named on the SDN List or entities owned by such designated persons. Additionally, designated persons sanctioned under the Executive Order will be blocked from entering the United States.

Given the growing nature of cyberattacks and the Executive Order’s potentially broad reach, individuals and companies with international business should consider taking steps to ensure their business partners do not meet the criteria of cyberattackers. For example, payments from persons designated as cyberattackers will be blocked by U.S. financial institutions and U.S. persons that engage in transactions with such persons could be subject to substantial penalties. Accordingly, U.S. businesses engaged in international transactions should consider updating their compliance programs and screening procedures to ensure they are not dealing with any persons designated on the SDN List, or that are owned 50 percent or more by such designated persons.

The Executive Order represents a turning point for the administration. It signals that the administration will take a more active role in fighting attacks that are often diffuse and difficult to investigate. Barnes & Thornburg has worked with the government to track down hackers who have levied corporate cyberattacks. In light of the Executive Order, there can be little doubt that the government will redouble its efforts to help victim companies, presenting opportunities for companies to work with the government in its efforts to track down and stop the perpetrators. This is good news for fighting cyberattacks.

ARTICLE BY

Scott N. Godes & Karen A. McGee of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

President Obama’s Executive Orders on Immigration – Interagency Cooperation and DOL Initiatives

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions designed to reduce the strain on the country’s immigration system. Many of these policies will have a direct effect on employers and the business community and demonstrate that the increased interagency cooperation and enforcement we have seen in recent years will continue.

Visa Application, Passport

The President has ordered the creation of an interagency working group consisting of U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to identify policies and procedures to promote the consistent enforcement of labor, employment and immigration laws. Two of the topics the working group will review include 1) promoting worker cooperation with enforcement authorities without fear of retaliation based on immigration status, and 2) ensuring that employers do not use federal agencies to undermine worker protection laws by introducing immigration authorities into labor disputes. DOL’s interagency working group fact sheet is available here. This interagency group appears to be ready to continue the DOL-DHS discussions that began with the signing in March 2011 of a Memorandum of Understanding (which has since been revised) between those two agencies governing their coordination with respect to their various civil enforcement activities and avoidance of conflicts.

DOL has also proposed to review the permanent labor certification program (PERM), which is used to certify a shortage of U.S. workers who are able, willing and qualified to fill certain positions. This certification is a necessary prerequisite for many employment-based legal permanent residence processes. For example, DOL has reported that employers filed more than 70,000 PERM applications seeking to certify shortages of U.S. workers for specific positions in fiscal year 2014. Among other key changes, DOL will attempt to modernize the PERM program so that it can identify worker shortages more effectively. This part of the President’s directives will hopefully have a positive impact on employers trying to fill positions for which the pool of qualified applicants is limited. DOL’s PERM fact sheet is available here.

Other initiatives flowing from the President’s announcement but whose details are not yet known include improved allocation of immigrant (legal permanent resident) visas; increased portability of work authorization without jeopardizing a pending legal permanent resident process; expanded work authorization for students, recent graduates and the spouses of certain professional-level workers; and efforts to increase the number of investors eligible to enter the country.

ARTICLE BY

Gene T. Schaeffer, Jr.

Monica Santa Maria

Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Executive Order Extends Workplace Anti-Discrimination Protections to LGBT Workers of Federal Contractors

Though it took longer than expected, President Barack Obama has signed an Executive Order extending protections against workplace discrimination to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community. Signed July 21, 2014, the Executive Order prohibits discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, adding to the list of protected categories. It does not contain any exemptions for religiously affiliated federal contractors, as some had hoped. Religiously affiliated federal contractors still may favor individuals of a particular religion when making employment decisions.

The President directed the Secretary of Labor to prepare regulations within 90 days (by October 19, 2014) implementing the new requirements as they relate to federal contractors under Executive Order 11246, which requires covered government contractors and subcontractors to undertake affirmative action to ensure that equal employment opportunity is afforded in all aspects of their employment processes. Executive Order 11246 is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

The Executive Order will apply to federal contracts entered into on or after the effective date of the forthcoming regulations. OFCCP likely will be charged with enforcement authority.

We recommend that employers who will be impacted by this Executive Order review their equal employment opportunity and harassment policies for compliance with the Executive Order. For example, employers who are government contractors should add both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under these policies and ensure that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated against LGBT employees.

We will provide additional information and insights into the proposed regulations when they are available.

Article By:

Eric J. Felsberg

Michelle E. Phillips

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

United States Expands Sanctions in Response to Activities in Ukraine, Names First SDNs (Specially Designated Nationals)

Early March 18, 2014, President Obama signed an Executive Order (E.O.) expanding on E.O. 13660, which was issued on March 10, 2014. In addition to naming specific persons subject to the restrictions of E.O. 13660, including former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the new E.O. expands the sanctions previously announced in response to recent actions of the Government of the Russian Federation in Crimea to include any person who is determined to:

Be an official of the Government of the Russian Federation;
Operate in the arms or related materiel in the Russian Federation;
Be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly of indirectly:
- a senior official of the Government of the Russian Federation; or
- a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

Have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:
- a senior official of the Government of the Russian Federation; or
- a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Effective immediately, all property and interests in property that are in the control of U.S. persons (including foreign branches) will be blocked, and subject persons will be prohibited from entry to the United States. The complete list of blocked persons is available here.

As the situation in Ukraine continues to unfold and sanctions are expanded, U.S. companies should be particularly cautious in screening transactions in the region and maintaining records. In addition, companies with affiliates in the European Union should be mindful of changes to EU sanctions that could impact business in the region.

Article by:

Joan Koenig

Mollie D. Sitkowski

Of:

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Tag: Executive Order