Senate Approves Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Prevents DHS from Rescinding "No-Match" Rule

Last week the Senate voted to accept an amendment (S. AMDT. 1375) to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2892) that would prevent the DHS from revoking its “No-Match” Rule. This rule – which was blocked by court order and never implemented – established procedures that employers could follow in the event they receive notices from the Social Security Administration (SSA) or DHS informing them that their employees’ names and Social Security numbers listed on W-2 earnings reports do not match SSA records. According to Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who introduced the amendment at issue, the No-Match rule “provided clear guidance on the appropriate responsibility of the employer, the appropriate due diligence the employer should undertake if they receive a letter from the Social Security Administration informing them there is not a proper match under those records,” and is therefore necessary to address illegal employment and clarify an employer’s responsibility in the event they are put on notice that they might be employing an illegal alien.

The DHS, on the other hand, has faulted this process on the grounds that the No-Match letters are sent months or even a year after the information is initially provided. In addition, according to the DHS, identification information is often called into question due to typographical errors or unreported name changes. On July 8, the DHS announced its intent to rescind the 2007 rule, and instead support E-Verify, which the agency claims will result in more timely and accurate No-Match letters.

Sen. Vitter’s amendment would essentially block the DHS from acting on this rule by prohibiting funds provided in the appropriations bill from being used to rescind the regulation. The amendment would also prevent further delays in implementing the no-match rule, which has been blocked by litigation filed by both organized labor and business groups.
 

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.