The Beltway Buzz® is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
President Trump Signs Immigration Enforcement Funding Bill Into Law. On June 10, 2026, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation providing $70 billion in funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which will ensure the agencies’ operations for the remainder of President Trump’s term. While this means that funding for ICE and CBP will no longer be an issue as part of the broader negotiations for funding the federal government, it does not mean that the appropriations process will instantly become an easy exercise. With current government funding set to expire approximately one month prior to the midterm elections, the process may turn into another political flashpoint.
House Passes Bill to Speed Collective Bargaining and Force Contract Terms. On June 9, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA). The bill sets artificial timelines for collective bargaining and allows government officials to dictate workers’ terms and conditions of employment. Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education & Workforce, spoke in opposition to the bill on the House floor, saying, “Simply put, the FLCA is not pro‑worker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long defined American labor relations.” The bill now heads to the U.S. Senate, where its champion, Josh Hawley (R-MO), applauded its passage in the House during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)–related hearing this week (more on the hearing below). James J. Plunkett and Ryan T. Sears have the details.
Federal Court Vacates President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Proclamation. On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B proclamation in a legal challenge filed by twenty state attorneys general. The court found that while the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the president with “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” it does not confer upon him the authority to impose taxes, as the proclamation does. The court writes, “[T]he Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.” The court also found that the issuance of the proclamation and its supporting materials (e.g., memoranda and FAQs) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in part because the administration did not make the materials available for public notice-and-comment. Because the court vacated the proclamation in its entirety pursuant to the APA, the ruling would appear to prohibit the administration from collecting the fee, but the case continues to be litigated at the federal district court and appellate levels.
Two other legal challenges are pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Marquita L. Capers has more.
Additional Immigration Policy News.
- Jennifer M. Cofer and Anabella Lojpur have the details on a U.S. Department of State temporary final rule that permits B-1 business visitor and B-2 tourist visa applicants to secure expedited interview appointments at consular posts upon the payment of a $750 fee. The rule is effective from July 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
- Nicole Fink and Philip K. Sholts have the scoop on a June 5, 2026, decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island that invalidates four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies emanating from President Trump’s “travel ban” executive order and proclamations. The court determined that USCIS “has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.”
Senate Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing on NLRB Nominations. On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on the nominations of James Macy and David Prouty to serve as members of the NLRB. (Prouty’s nomination is for a second term, as his current term is set to expire on August 27, 2026. Macy has been a management-side labor and employment attorney for decades and has served in several roles within the current U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), including as director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.) If confirmed, Macy would provide current Republican Board members, Scott Mayer and Chair James Murphy, with the potential necessary third vote required by Board tradition to overturn current Board law. A vote in the Senate HELP Committee is expected shortly.
DOJ Opinion Letter Questions Disparate-Impact Discrimination. On June 9, 2026, in response to a request from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Andrea Lucas, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion letter stating the EEOC’s interpretations of federal case law and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 relating to disparate impact discrimination “embrace an unconstitutional reading” of federal law. In contrast to disparate treatment or intentional discrimination, disparate impact allows for a finding of discrimination when an otherwise neutral policy, such as a criminal background check, has an adverse effect on protected groups. The opinion letter maintains that disparate-impact analysis unlawfully and unconstitutionally “functions as a qualified racial-proportionality mandate and spurs employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking to avoid liability.” (Regarding liability, Title VII does not allow for the recovery of punitive or compensatory damages in disparate impact claims.) The opinion letter specifically characterizes the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (jointly adopted by the EEOC, the DOL, and the DOJ) and the EEOC’s Affirmative Action Guidelines as contrary to Title VII and unconstitutional.
The opinion letter does not amend federal law, which still provides for disparate-impact causes of action. Nor does it change decades of case law that has expounded on disparate-impact discrimination. Accordingly, this theory of discrimination is still available to plaintiffs. However, the opinion buttresses both the White House’s and EEOC’s policy positions that deemphasize disparate-impact discrimination (as outlined in the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan).
Proposed Federal Grant Requirements Mandate E-Verify, Codify White House EOs. The White House Office of Management and Budget, along with dozens of federal agencies, has proposed changes to the regulations governing the issuance of federal grants and financial assistance. The proposal would impact applicants and recipients (including their subrecipients and contractors) in the following ways:
- Disparate-impact discrimination. The proposal would codify the administration’s position on disparate-impact discrimination “to ensure that awards are administered in a manner that does not promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability, including by not issuing terms, conditions, or guidance that would advance theories of disparate-impact liability.”
- Protected groups. The proposal further removes the current nondiscrimination language that references Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), and adds a new provision expressly prohibiting discrimination against a grant applicant on the basis of the organization’s religious affiliation.
- Codification of executive orders (EOs). Agencies and recipients must ensure that federal funds are “not used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate”: (1) “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” as defined in Executive Order 14173; (2) gender ideology as defined in EO 14168; or (3) the transition of individuals under nineteen years of age pursuant to E O 14187.
- E-Verify. The proposal would require all federal grant recipients to enroll in E-Verify “to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees and contractors hired in or performing work in the United States under a Federal award.”
Comments on the proposal are due by July 13, 2026.
Seersucker Summer Returns. Pursuant to a bipartisan resolution (S.Res.757) introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and agreed to by unanimous consent of the Senate, June 11, 2026, was designated “National Seersucker Day,” and June 2026 was designated “Seersucker Appreciation Month.” Seersucker is a lightweight fabric that is purposely designed to be puckered and wrinkled so as not to sit directly on the skin, making it more breathable in the summer months. (The Buzz wrote about the history of “Seersucker Thursday” several years ago.) Pursuant to the resolution, “every subsequent Thursday through the last Thursday in August 2026” has been designated as “Seersucker Thursday.” The resolution further invited “the people of the United States to don their warm weather finest on National Seersucker Day and every Seersucker Thursday.”
