Work-Authorization Verification System

Summary#

This bill makes federal use of an electronic employment-eligibility verification system mandatory and permanent for most U.S. employers. It requires employers to check new hires and certain current workers using a system like E-Verify, sets phased deadlines by employer size, raises penalties for violations, and creates rules for how the system is run and paid for. The broad goal is to prevent unauthorized employment and tighten verification of workers’ right to work.

Key changes:

• Main change: Employers must use an electronic verification system to confirm identity and work authorization for most new hires, recruiters/referrers, and some current employees, with phased start dates based on employer size.
• Phased deadlines: Large employers (10,000+ employees) begin checks in 6 months; progressively smaller employers get 12, 18, or 24 months to start. Recruiting/referring starts 12 months. Agricultural workers are delayed until 30 months.
• Reverification: Employers must reverify workers with time-limited authorization within three business days after authorization expires (phased by employer size).
• Previously hired workers: Certain current employees (federal/state/local government workers, some security-cleared workers, many federal contract workers) must be verified within 6 months.
• System design and administration: DHS must run the system (or delegate it, including to a nongovernmental designee). SSA and DHS must coordinate on matching social security numbers. The bill requires protections for privacy and against misuse.
• Enforcement and penalties: Civil fines and criminal penalties are increased, and debarment from federal contracts is possible for repeat violators. Employers who comply in good faith have a legal defense; errors by the system limit individuals’ legal remedies to the Federal Tort Claims Act (no class actions).

What it means for you#

• Employers

  • Must collect and record specified identity and authorization information from hires (SSN or U.S. passport number, DHS number for noncitizens) and either examine certain listed documents or use the verification system.
  • Must run a verification inquiry through the federal system within three business days after hire (or during the recruiting/referral verification period).
  • Phased compliance deadlines depend on employer size (6–24 months). Small employers may request a one-time 6‑month extension if they have 50 or fewer employees.
  • Employers must retain verification forms for set periods and record system codes for confirmations or nonconfirmations.
  • If an employer receives a final nonconfirmation and still keeps the worker, a rebuttable presumption of violation is created; failing to notify DHS of a final nonconfirmation is treated as a violation.
  • Voluntary verification of current workers is allowed, but if done, employers must verify all workers at the same location or all in the same job category.

• Job applicants and employees

  • Must attest under penalty of perjury to citizenship or lawful work status and provide identifying numbers. They may need to present specified identity and work authorization documents.
  • If a tentative nonconfirmation occurs, the employee can use a secondary verification process. Employers may not fire or rescind an offer based solely on a tentative nonconfirmation until it is final.
  • If the verification system makes an error that causes job loss or denial, the individual’s compensation options are limited to filing a Federal Tort Claims Act claim; class actions are barred.

• Federal contractors and security‑sensitive workplaces

  • Many employees who work under federal contracts or in secure facilities are specifically subject to verification within short timeframes.

• State and local governments

  • Federal law preempts state/local rules on hiring and status verification. States may still enforce the federal rules at their own cost, but must follow federal procedures and cannot double-enforce an employer for the same violation.

• People whose SSNs are misused

  • The bill directs DHS and SSA to block or suspend SSNs that show unusual multiple use or are suspected of identity theft for purposes of the verification system. Procedures must be set up for victims (including parents for minors) to suspend or limit use of their numbers.

• General public

  • The bill requires DHS and SSA to set up and maintain the verification system, plus pilot programs for identity-authentication technologies and audits by the SSA Inspector General.

Expenses#

The bill requires funding arrangements for running the verification system, but it does not include a total cost estimate.

• The bill directs DHS and the Social Security Administration to enter an agreement to provide the Commissioner of Social Security with funds to cover SSA costs for matching SSNs and responding to contested nonconfirmations. Payments are to be made annually in advance and reconciled.
• If an agreement is late, the most recent agreement remains in effect on an interim basis with adjustments for inflation and request volume.
• The bill creates new administrative tasks: building or operating the system (DHS or a designee), SSA matching and customer responses, pilot programs, Inspector General audits, an office for state/local complaints, and new enforcement and debarment work. No dollar amounts or fiscal notes are included in the text.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to strengthen enforcement of work‑authorization rules and reduce unauthorized employment. Possible arguments in favor, based on the bill text:

• The bill appears designed to make a single, nationwide, electronic verification system mandatory so employers can readily check work authorization.
• It could be seen as improving accuracy by requiring SSA and DHS matches and creating a formal secondary verification process for tentative nonconfirmations.
• The bill emphasizes privacy and limits use of the verification form to law enforcement of these rules, which may be presented as safeguards.
• Creating penalties and debarment options may be viewed as strengthening deterrence against hiring unauthorized workers.
• Programs for blocking or suspending misused SSNs and pilot authentication technologies aim to reduce identity theft and fraud in the verification process.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s text also raises several practical concerns or trade‑offs that someone might cite:

• One concern is that the bill does not provide a cost estimate. Building, operating, and staffing the verification system and SSA matching functions could require significant federal and private resources.
• Employers will face new compliance steps, recordkeeping, and potential liability. Smaller businesses may find implementation burdensome despite phased deadlines and a limited extension option.
• The bill increases civil and criminal penalties substantially. Questions remain about how errors, appeals, and good‑faith defenses will work in practice.
• Reliance on SSA and DHS records risks denying or delaying employment to lawful workers if records are outdated or wrong. The bill limits individuals’ legal remedies (no class actions), which may make it harder to address widespread system errors.
• Privacy and discrimination risks exist even though the bill calls for safeguards. The system could be used selectively unless oversight and protections operate effectively.
• It is unclear who ultimately bears the ongoing operating costs (the funding agreement is required but the source of funds and total amounts are not specified in the bill).
• Allowing DHS to delegate operation to nongovernmental entities raises questions about data security, oversight, and accountability.