1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Beware of Oververification of Lawful Permanent Residents

Beware of Oververification of Lawful Permanent Residents

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.25.14

On April 24, 2014, the Department of Justice announced the settlement of a discrimination claim against the supermarket chain Mexico Foods LLC, aka El Rancho Corp., alleging, in part, that El Rancho's practice of requiring employees who are lawful permanent residents to present new employment eligibility documents once their permanent resident cards had expired violated anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The settlement serves as a reminder that, although an employee's permanent resident card may expire, the lawful permanent resident status does not, rendering re-verification of cards unnecessary -- even for ensuring the person remains a "U.S. person" for purposes of U.S. export control laws-- and exposing employers who engage in the practice to potential liability for discrimination.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights