Immigration Enforcement Trends Heighten White Collar and Employment Law Risks
Our Employment and Labor colleagues at Post & Schell recently highlighted the government’s expanded immigration enforcement efforts, including a tripled U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) budget, new 287(g) agreements in Pennsylvania, and shifting Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) rules. That alert addressed the operational compliance steps employers should take. From the white collar perspective, those same developments, along with high-profile changes to Department of Justice (“DOJ”) enforcement priorities, also increase the likelihood that an immigration-related matter will trigger broader criminal and regulatory scrutiny, often with personal exposure for executives and managers.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January of 2025, federal authorities like the DOJ and ICE have scaled up immigration enforcement while coordinating more closely with other investigative agencies, including state agencies. This combined approach will inevitably lead to more frequent workplace visits, records inspections, and employee detentions, the results of which may ultimately provide a basis for expanded DOJ civil enforcement and criminal prosecutions.
This is not simply a matter of “more enforcement,” but rather a structural shift in how cases are built. In recent years, DOJ has emphasized cross-pollination between its civil and criminal divisions, allowing information from an immigration inquiry to be shared directly with attorneys handling fraud, tax, or public corruption cases. In practical terms, a local ICE inspection can now become the entry point for a federal grand jury investigation, with subpoenas for payroll records, bank accounts, corporate emails, and even personal devices. The involvement of state attorneys general further expands the playing field, increasing the chances of parallel state and federal proceedings.
What was once perhaps a peripheral concern limited to employers in industries with high concentrations of foreign-born workers is now an urgent issue for every employer. The federal government’s sharpened focus on immigration enforcement means that all employers, regardless of their size or field, must pay close attention to any practices or policies that could trigger criminal consequences.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS
A coordinated approach from the government means that what begins as a workplace-level inspection can develop into a corporate-level probe. Enforcement agencies share information freely, increasing the risk that unrelated compliance weaknesses will be exposed. For companies with significant immigrant populations in their workforces, this creates a convergence of employment compliance and white collar defense considerations.
This convergence carries special risk for highly regulated industries, such as healthcare, food production, and construction, where corporate licensing, contracting eligibility, and government funding can be jeopardized by a single adverse enforcement finding. For example, a company that loses good standing with a federal agency due to an immigration-related fraud charge may, under certain circumstances, face debarment from federal contracts or exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs. In certain cases, even pending investigations can trigger contractual termination clauses with customers or suppliers.
In addition, DOJ attorneys are increasingly focused on “tone at the top” in these cases. Senior executives are being scrutinized not just for their direct involvement in hiring or verification decisions, but for the adequacy of corporate compliance systems and their oversight of those systems. If prosecutors believe leadership ignored known risks, for example, failing to act on an internal audit showing I-9 deficiencies, that inaction could become a building block for obstruction or conspiracy charges.
Employers should act now to evaluate vulnerabilities and implement a plan that addresses immigration compliance alongside broader enforcement risks. In practice, an audit or raid can open the door to:
- False Statements/Obstruction of Justice – Alleged misrepresentations in interviews, submissions, or document production.
- Document Fraud/Identity Theft – Use or acceptance of falsified identification or employment records.
- Payroll Tax and Benefits Fraud – Misclassification, off-the-books payments, or benefits schemes uncovered during immigration inquiries.
- Mail and Wire Fraud – Use of postal or electronic communications in connection with unlawful hiring or payment practices.
- Conspiracy – Alleged coordination to employ unauthorized workers or conceal violations.
- Trafficking-Related Offenses – Claims of coercive labor practices or exploitation of vulnerable workers.
These charges can arise even where the underlying immigration issue is secondary. Once multiple agencies are looped in, the case can quickly expand beyond the scope of the initial immigration enforcement action.
Notably, in her February 2025 memorandum to all DOJ employees, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated in unequivocal terms that DOJ will use “all available criminal statutes” to address what she characterized as a “flood of illegal immigration.” The memorandum discusses DOJ’s charging priorities, specifically including violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 1324a, statutes that make it a crime to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens; along with statutes making it a crime to transport (e.g., to a worksite) unauthorized aliens, to engage in document fraud (e.g., falsifying visa applications), and to “harbor” (e.g., provide temporary housing) to unauthorized aliens. Similarly, a May 2025 revision to DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program provides individuals with an incentive to report violations by or through companies related to federal immigration law. These changes signal that companies must take immigration-related obligations seriously, as the risk of legal exposure has grown significantly.
KEY WORKPLACE ISSUES
- Coordinated Agency Actions – Be on the lookout for ICE investigations to be conducted with DOJ. This means that a single immigration-related inquiry can quickly evolve into a multi-faceted civil or criminal matter.
- Broader Legal Exposure – Issues such as document falsification, payroll discrepancies, or inaccurate immigration filings uncovered during a site inspection may result in criminal charges.
- Expanded Charging Theories – Irregularities in hiring records or payroll documentation can be leveraged into wire fraud, mail fraud, or other federal charges that go beyond immigration statutes.
- Parallel Proceedings – Administrative and civil employment law actions may proceed at the same time as criminal investigations, complicating defense strategy and raising the stakes for inconsistent statements or document production.
It is also worth noting that investigative priorities can shift. An inquiry that begins as a suspected trafficking case could evolve into a tax evasion case, or vice versa. This fluidity requires defense teams to be adaptable and to anticipate how each potential charge affects privilege, disclosure obligations, and strategy. In parallel proceedings, testimony or documents provided to an administrative body can be used in a criminal context if inconsistencies emerge.
ACTION STEPS TO MITIGATE RISK
- Integrate Compliance Functions – Ensure that payroll, tax, and legal teams coordinate on recordkeeping with respect to all employees, but especially immigrants.
- Audit with a White Collar Lens – Review I-9 and E-Verify processes alongside payroll and tax reporting for any inconsistencies that could invite scrutiny.
- Coordinate Early with Employment Counsel – Align strategies to manage both employment law requirements and potential criminal exposure.
- Preserve Attorney-Client Privilege – Channel internal fact-finding through counsel to maintain attorney–client protections.
Taking these steps before enforcement activity begins can be the difference between containing a single agency administrative issue and defending against a multi-year criminal investigation. The speed with which agencies can pivot from an employment law audit to a full-scale white collar investigation underscores why the initial response, even in what appears to be a “routine” ICE action, must be deliberate, coordinated, and legally informed.
If you have questions about this, please feel free to contact Abe Rein, Chair of the firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group at arein@postschell.com or 215-587-1057, or Laily Sheybani, Associate, at lsheybani@postschell.com or 215-587-1070.
About the Authors
Abraham J. Rein is a Principal in the Firm's Internal Investigations & White Collar Defense Group, Co-Chair of its Information Privacy & Security Group, and a member of the Firm's Diversity and Inclusion Committee. He focuses particularly on the intersection of technology and the law, advising clients on legal aspects of data security, social media compliance, electronic discovery, the application of certain constitutional rights in a digital era, and related topics.
Laily Sheybani is an Associate in the firm's White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group. She conducts internal investigations and defends individuals, companies, and organizations facing criminal and civil investigations and litigation. Her practice includes matters involving investigations by state and federal regulatory bodies, internal investigations, criminal charges, and alleged fraud. This includes investigations and litigation related to the False Claims Act, the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law, and alleged financial fraud and securities violations. Her clients include individuals and companies in the healthcare, financial, manufacturing, and construction industries, among others.