Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Law/Legal
Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Team Raises $200,000 in 2026 Pan-Mass Challenge
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 8 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news on Aug. 7, 2026:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Team Raises $200,000 in 2026 Pan-Mass Challenge
On August 1 and 2, a team of Ropes & Gray attorneys and support team members participated in the Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC), a cycling event across 177 miles in Massachusetts, to raise money for cancer research and treatment. The grand total the firm has raised in its more than 25 years sponsoring a team is now almost at $3.8 million, making Ropes & Gray one of the PMC's leading long-time supporters.
The ride, which has raised ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 8 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * Ropes & Gray Team Raises $200,000 in 2026 Pan-Mass Challenge On August 1 and 2, a team of Ropes & Gray attorneys and support team members participated in the Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC), a cycling event across 177 miles in Massachusetts, to raise money for cancer research and treatment. The grand total the firm has raised in its more than 25 years sponsoring a team is now almost at $3.8 million, making Ropes & Gray one of the PMC's leading long-time supporters. The ride, which has raisedover $1 billion since its inception, benefits the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the world's premier cancer treatment and research centers.
PMC is one of the firm's most cherished traditions, bringing people together from across different offices, practice groups and generations. This year, Team Ropes was comprised of over 35 members from five offices, including: Ted Alexander, J.R. Ames, Leo Arnaboldi, Jeff Bashara, Greg Bauer, Stefanie Birkmann, Mike Boussy, Doug Brayley, Kathy Buckley, John Bueker, Jayne Costello (Team Coordinator), Jeremy Daniels, JR Drabick, Stephen Eckelkamp, Dan Forman, Donna Frankel, Trevor Fry, Will Hamilton, Keith Higgins, Andrew Lawson, Josh Levy, Patrick MacDonald, Collin Mantz, Ryan McCaffrey (Team Captain), Mark Morrison, Erin Morris, Julianne O'Connor, Ali Olia, Al Rose, Toby Shao, Leanne Sturman, Patrick Welsh, Glenda Watson (Volunteer Captain), Christian Westra, and Marko Zatylny.
The PMC raises more money for charity than any other single athletic fundraising event in the United States. 100% of every dollar raised goes directly to Dana-Farber.
To donate, please click here (http://profile.pmc.org/TR0041) and follow the instructions to make a gift to support the Ropes & Gray team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/08/ropes-gray-team-in-2026-pan-mass-challenge
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Ropes & Gray Team Raises $200,000 in 2026 Pan-Mass Challenge
On August 1 and 2, a team of Ropes & Gray attorneys and support team members participated in the Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC), a cycling event across 177 miles in Massachusetts, to raise money for cancer research and treatment. The grand total the firm has raised in its more than 25 years sponsoring a team is now almost at $3.8 million, making Ropes & Gray one of the PMC's leading long-time supporters.
The ride, which has raised ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 8 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * Ropes & Gray Team Raises $200,000 in 2026 Pan-Mass Challenge On August 1 and 2, a team of Ropes & Gray attorneys and support team members participated in the Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC), a cycling event across 177 miles in Massachusetts, to raise money for cancer research and treatment. The grand total the firm has raised in its more than 25 years sponsoring a team is now almost at $3.8 million, making Ropes & Gray one of the PMC's leading long-time supporters. The ride, which has raisedover $1 billion since its inception, benefits the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the world's premier cancer treatment and research centers.
PMC is one of the firm's most cherished traditions, bringing people together from across different offices, practice groups and generations. This year, Team Ropes was comprised of over 35 members from five offices, including: Ted Alexander, J.R. Ames, Leo Arnaboldi, Jeff Bashara, Greg Bauer, Stefanie Birkmann, Mike Boussy, Doug Brayley, Kathy Buckley, John Bueker, Jayne Costello (Team Coordinator), Jeremy Daniels, JR Drabick, Stephen Eckelkamp, Dan Forman, Donna Frankel, Trevor Fry, Will Hamilton, Keith Higgins, Andrew Lawson, Josh Levy, Patrick MacDonald, Collin Mantz, Ryan McCaffrey (Team Captain), Mark Morrison, Erin Morris, Julianne O'Connor, Ali Olia, Al Rose, Toby Shao, Leanne Sturman, Patrick Welsh, Glenda Watson (Volunteer Captain), Christian Westra, and Marko Zatylny.
The PMC raises more money for charity than any other single athletic fundraising event in the United States. 100% of every dollar raised goes directly to Dana-Farber.
To donate, please click here (http://profile.pmc.org/TR0041) and follow the instructions to make a gift to support the Ropes & Gray team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/08/ropes-gray-team-in-2026-pan-mass-challenge
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Polsinelli Attorneys Earn Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite Rankings
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Aug. 8 -- Polsinelli, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Polsinelli Attorneys Earn Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite Rankings
Polsinelli is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings, including attorneys in the Denver and Missouri markets.
These rankings build on the firm's strong performance in the 2026 Legal 500 United States guide, where Polsinelli earned a Tier 1 ranking for M&A/Corporate and Commercial: Middle-Market ($0-250M), a Tier 3 ranking for Healthcare: ... Show Full Article KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Aug. 8 -- Polsinelli, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Polsinelli Attorneys Earn Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite Rankings Polsinelli is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings, including attorneys in the Denver and Missouri markets. These rankings build on the firm's strong performance in the 2026 Legal 500 United States guide, where Polsinelli earned a Tier 1 ranking for M&A/Corporate and Commercial: Middle-Market ($0-250M), a Tier 3 ranking for Healthcare:Service Providers and recognition as a Firm to Watch for Technology Transactions: Media, Technology and Telecoms.
In Denver, Shareholders Sean R. Gallagher and Amy Kiefer Hansen were recognized for their work in Commercial Disputes and Real Estate, respectively.
The following shareholders were recognized in the Missouri City Elite rankings:
* Zachary J. Block
* Corey M. Casey
* Elton F. Dean III
* Kathryn J. Doty
* Allison N. Krepel
* Michael H. Longmeyer
* Michael A. Williamson
The Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings recognize lawyers at regional firms who are handling sophisticated matters at the highest levels of the legal market in major U.S. business centers. The rankings are based on independent research, client feedback and market analysis.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.polsinelli.com/news/polsinelli-attorneys-earn-recognition-in-2026-legal-500-united-states-city-elite-rankings
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Polsinelli Attorneys Earn Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite Rankings
Polsinelli is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings, including attorneys in the Denver and Missouri markets.
These rankings build on the firm's strong performance in the 2026 Legal 500 United States guide, where Polsinelli earned a Tier 1 ranking for M&A/Corporate and Commercial: Middle-Market ($0-250M), a Tier 3 ranking for Healthcare: ... Show Full Article KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Aug. 8 -- Polsinelli, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Polsinelli Attorneys Earn Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite Rankings Polsinelli is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings, including attorneys in the Denver and Missouri markets. These rankings build on the firm's strong performance in the 2026 Legal 500 United States guide, where Polsinelli earned a Tier 1 ranking for M&A/Corporate and Commercial: Middle-Market ($0-250M), a Tier 3 ranking for Healthcare:Service Providers and recognition as a Firm to Watch for Technology Transactions: Media, Technology and Telecoms.
In Denver, Shareholders Sean R. Gallagher and Amy Kiefer Hansen were recognized for their work in Commercial Disputes and Real Estate, respectively.
The following shareholders were recognized in the Missouri City Elite rankings:
* Zachary J. Block
* Corey M. Casey
* Elton F. Dean III
* Kathryn J. Doty
* Allison N. Krepel
* Michael H. Longmeyer
* Michael A. Williamson
The Legal 500 United States City Elite rankings recognize lawyers at regional firms who are handling sophisticated matters at the highest levels of the legal market in major U.S. business centers. The rankings are based on independent research, client feedback and market analysis.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.polsinelli.com/news/polsinelli-attorneys-earn-recognition-in-2026-legal-500-united-states-city-elite-rankings
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news wrap-up entitled "Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026":
* * *
Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
Senate Making Final Push on Top Legislative Priorities Before Leaving Town for August Recess
Before embarking on a 5-week August recess, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news wrap-up entitled "Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026": * * * Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026 At a Glance The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace. By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin Senate Making Final Push on Top Legislative Priorities Before Leaving Town for August Recess Before embarking on a 5-week August recess,the U.S. Senate is making a big push today, and possibly over the weekend, to advance several important agenda items, including:
* Confirmed Block of 74 White House Nominees - The Senate confirmed today a large block of nominees, including James Macy and David Prouty to be members of the National Labor Relations Board. Their confirmation allows the Board to keep its quorum through the remainder of the Trump administration. In addition, Macy's confirmation gives the Board a three-member Republican majority allowing for potential policy shifts from Biden-era decisions.
* Passed Russia Sanctions - The Senate earlier today passed the bipartisan Russian sanctions legislation as an homage to the late Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who sponsored the bill, which gives the president the authority to issue new tariffs against countries that import Russian oil and natural gas.
* Short-term Funding Bill to Avert a Government Shutdown This Fall - The Continuing Resolution (CR) would push the congressional funding deadline to December 11, preventing a potential autumnal government shutdown. (Note: The U.S. House of Representatives left Washington for its August recess on July 23 after passing its version of a "clean" CR, which extends funding to December 4. Given the Senate's extended deadline and adjustments to program extensions omitted by the House, e.g., surface transportation, veterans' benefits, and flood insurance, the House will need to pass the CR when it returns from recess.)
* Save America Act - Majority Leader Thune said publicly there may be a vote on the "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act," which would require documentation of citizenship and photo ID to register to vote.
* Other Policy Debates are likely to get punted to September, including a college sports compensation reform, a framework to establish clear regulatory boundaries for cryptocurrencies and digital assets, and a budget blueprint for defense and Iran war funding.
Top House Republicans Investigating Labor Unions' Political Expenditures
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) and the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Chair Rick Allen (R-GA) launched an investigation into whether leaders of the nation's largest labor unions are misusing union members' dues to fund partisan political activities and candidates to advance their own interests over the members they represent. For additional information, read here.
President Trump Issues Executive Orders to Limit U.S. Birthright Citizenship
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil, President Trump issued two executive orders on August 6 which seek to limit birthright citizenship. The executive orders include: "Ending Birth Tourism," which targets those who travel to the U.S. with the sole intention of giving birth here so their child will gain U.S. citizenship; and "Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which seeks to exclude children born to foreign terrorists, and others. Read the fact sheet here.
IRS Issues New Guidance on "No Tax on Overtime"
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a new Fact Sheet providing updates to the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation, which provides clarification on the limits and timing of the deduction, additional information on coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and other clarifying updates to the most frequently asked questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/policy-week-review-august-7-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
Senate Making Final Push on Top Legislative Priorities Before Leaving Town for August Recess
Before embarking on a 5-week August recess, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news wrap-up entitled "Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026": * * * Policy Week in Review - August 7, 2026 At a Glance The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace. By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin Senate Making Final Push on Top Legislative Priorities Before Leaving Town for August Recess Before embarking on a 5-week August recess,the U.S. Senate is making a big push today, and possibly over the weekend, to advance several important agenda items, including:
* Confirmed Block of 74 White House Nominees - The Senate confirmed today a large block of nominees, including James Macy and David Prouty to be members of the National Labor Relations Board. Their confirmation allows the Board to keep its quorum through the remainder of the Trump administration. In addition, Macy's confirmation gives the Board a three-member Republican majority allowing for potential policy shifts from Biden-era decisions.
* Passed Russia Sanctions - The Senate earlier today passed the bipartisan Russian sanctions legislation as an homage to the late Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who sponsored the bill, which gives the president the authority to issue new tariffs against countries that import Russian oil and natural gas.
* Short-term Funding Bill to Avert a Government Shutdown This Fall - The Continuing Resolution (CR) would push the congressional funding deadline to December 11, preventing a potential autumnal government shutdown. (Note: The U.S. House of Representatives left Washington for its August recess on July 23 after passing its version of a "clean" CR, which extends funding to December 4. Given the Senate's extended deadline and adjustments to program extensions omitted by the House, e.g., surface transportation, veterans' benefits, and flood insurance, the House will need to pass the CR when it returns from recess.)
* Save America Act - Majority Leader Thune said publicly there may be a vote on the "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act," which would require documentation of citizenship and photo ID to register to vote.
* Other Policy Debates are likely to get punted to September, including a college sports compensation reform, a framework to establish clear regulatory boundaries for cryptocurrencies and digital assets, and a budget blueprint for defense and Iran war funding.
Top House Republicans Investigating Labor Unions' Political Expenditures
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) and the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Chair Rick Allen (R-GA) launched an investigation into whether leaders of the nation's largest labor unions are misusing union members' dues to fund partisan political activities and candidates to advance their own interests over the members they represent. For additional information, read here.
President Trump Issues Executive Orders to Limit U.S. Birthright Citizenship
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil, President Trump issued two executive orders on August 6 which seek to limit birthright citizenship. The executive orders include: "Ending Birth Tourism," which targets those who travel to the U.S. with the sole intention of giving birth here so their child will gain U.S. citizenship; and "Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which seeks to exclude children born to foreign terrorists, and others. Read the fact sheet here.
IRS Issues New Guidance on "No Tax on Overtime"
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a new Fact Sheet providing updates to the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation, which provides clarification on the limits and timing of the deduction, additional information on coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and other clarifying updates to the most frequently asked questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/policy-week-review-august-7-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: What Do Colorado Employers Need to Know About New I-9-Related Duties? 6 Steps to Compliance
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026:
* * *
What Do Colorado Employers Need to Know About New I-9-Related Duties? 6 Steps to Compliance
Colorado employers now face a new layer of obligations when reviewing identity and work authorization documents. A recently enacted Colorado law restricts how long employers may hold original government-issued identification and requires a new written notice whenever an employer verifies employment eligibility. The law, which took effect on June 3, does not replace the federal Form I-9 process ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * What Do Colorado Employers Need to Know About New I-9-Related Duties? 6 Steps to Compliance Colorado employers now face a new layer of obligations when reviewing identity and work authorization documents. A recently enacted Colorado law restricts how long employers may hold original government-issued identification and requires a new written notice whenever an employer verifies employment eligibility. The law, which took effect on June 3, does not replace the federal Form I-9 processbut adds state-specific procedures and potential exposure on top of it. What do you need to know about this new law and what six steps should you consider?
What Happened
Form I-9 is the federal form used to verify a new hire's identity and authorization to work in the United States. Federal rules govern which documents employees may present and how employers review them.
Colorado's new law (HB 26-1283) does not change those federal document lists or verification standards. Instead, it adds state-specific requirements governing how employers handle original government-issued identification documents during the employment eligibility verification process. It includes new rules regarding temporary possession of original documents, employee notice, acknowledgments, and recordkeeping.
Biggest Changes to Know About
Employers should be aware of five significant changes:
* Limits on retaining original documents
You generally may not demand, confiscate, retain, or otherwise require an employee or applicant to surrender an original government-issued identification document. You may temporarily retain an original document while completing Form I-9, but only as long as necessary to verify employment eligibility and never for more than 10 hours.
* Retaining copies of documents is still permitted
The law does not prohibit you from making and retaining copies of identity and work authorization documents when otherwise permitted under federal law or the employer's Form I-9 practices.
* A new written notice requirement
Whenever you verify employment eligibility, you must provide written notice informing the individual that you are not permitted to retain the person's original identification documents.
* Notice and acknowledgment must be retained
The individual must acknowledge receiving the notice, and you must retain both the notice and acknowledgment.
* Translated notices may be required
If you know that English is not the individual's primary language, you must provide the notice in their primary language.
If you know that English is not the individual's primary language, you must provide the notice in their primary language.
Hidden Dangers
The law may also affect more than your HR employees who are responsible for completing I-9s. If recruiters, hiring managers, onboarding teams, staffing personnel, third-party administrators, and remote verification vendors handle original identification documents or participate in the hiring or onboarding process, they are also subject to this new rule.
For this reason, you'll need a consistent process for returning originals promptly, issuing the required notice, obtaining acknowledgment, and preserving the related records.
Remote verification practices may also require attention. You should consider how original documents are presented, reviewed, transmitted, and returned when verification occurs through an authorized representative or third-party provider.
Compliance and Legal Risk
A knowing violation may constitute criminal possession of an identification document, classified under the act as a class 2 misdemeanor. An affected individual may also file a civil claim in court seeking return of the document and pursuing damages resulting from the violation.
6 Steps Employers Should Consider
Colorado employers may want to consider the following six measures to ensure compliance:
1. Review document-handling practices. Identify every point at which original identification documents are collected, transported, scanned, stored, or returned.
2. Create a written notice and acknowledgment. Implement the use of a Colorado-specific form that explains the prohibition on retaining original identification documents and include an acknowledgement statement.
3. Prepare translated versions. Identify the languages commonly used in your workplace and establish a process for providing accurate translations when needed.
4. Limit access to originals. Consider adopting procedures requiring immediate return of original documents and prohibiting overnight or routine storage.
5. Update onboarding and reverification workflows. Incorporate the notice into initial hiring, rehire, reverification, and remote verification processes.
6. Review vendor practices. Confirm that staffing agencies, professional employer organizations, remote verification vendors, and other representatives follow the same restrictions.
7. Monitor for guidance. Colorado officials may soon issue a model notice, implementation guidance, or additional instructions addressing acknowledgment, translation, and retention practices. Pay attention to developments and adjust as necessary. The best way to keep these potential changes on your radar is to subscribe to the Fisher Phillips Insight system.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments affecting Form I-9 compliance and employment eligibility verification. If you have questions, consult your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Denver office or in the firm's Immigration Practice Group. Make sure that you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Jocelyn Campanaro
Partner
303.218.3667
jcampanaro@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Christopher Caravello
Associate
303.218.3642
ccaravello@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/what-do-colorado-employers-need-to-know-about-new-i-9-related-duties
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
What Do Colorado Employers Need to Know About New I-9-Related Duties? 6 Steps to Compliance
Colorado employers now face a new layer of obligations when reviewing identity and work authorization documents. A recently enacted Colorado law restricts how long employers may hold original government-issued identification and requires a new written notice whenever an employer verifies employment eligibility. The law, which took effect on June 3, does not replace the federal Form I-9 process ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * What Do Colorado Employers Need to Know About New I-9-Related Duties? 6 Steps to Compliance Colorado employers now face a new layer of obligations when reviewing identity and work authorization documents. A recently enacted Colorado law restricts how long employers may hold original government-issued identification and requires a new written notice whenever an employer verifies employment eligibility. The law, which took effect on June 3, does not replace the federal Form I-9 processbut adds state-specific procedures and potential exposure on top of it. What do you need to know about this new law and what six steps should you consider?
What Happened
Form I-9 is the federal form used to verify a new hire's identity and authorization to work in the United States. Federal rules govern which documents employees may present and how employers review them.
Colorado's new law (HB 26-1283) does not change those federal document lists or verification standards. Instead, it adds state-specific requirements governing how employers handle original government-issued identification documents during the employment eligibility verification process. It includes new rules regarding temporary possession of original documents, employee notice, acknowledgments, and recordkeeping.
Biggest Changes to Know About
Employers should be aware of five significant changes:
* Limits on retaining original documents
You generally may not demand, confiscate, retain, or otherwise require an employee or applicant to surrender an original government-issued identification document. You may temporarily retain an original document while completing Form I-9, but only as long as necessary to verify employment eligibility and never for more than 10 hours.
* Retaining copies of documents is still permitted
The law does not prohibit you from making and retaining copies of identity and work authorization documents when otherwise permitted under federal law or the employer's Form I-9 practices.
* A new written notice requirement
Whenever you verify employment eligibility, you must provide written notice informing the individual that you are not permitted to retain the person's original identification documents.
* Notice and acknowledgment must be retained
The individual must acknowledge receiving the notice, and you must retain both the notice and acknowledgment.
* Translated notices may be required
If you know that English is not the individual's primary language, you must provide the notice in their primary language.
If you know that English is not the individual's primary language, you must provide the notice in their primary language.
Hidden Dangers
The law may also affect more than your HR employees who are responsible for completing I-9s. If recruiters, hiring managers, onboarding teams, staffing personnel, third-party administrators, and remote verification vendors handle original identification documents or participate in the hiring or onboarding process, they are also subject to this new rule.
For this reason, you'll need a consistent process for returning originals promptly, issuing the required notice, obtaining acknowledgment, and preserving the related records.
Remote verification practices may also require attention. You should consider how original documents are presented, reviewed, transmitted, and returned when verification occurs through an authorized representative or third-party provider.
Compliance and Legal Risk
A knowing violation may constitute criminal possession of an identification document, classified under the act as a class 2 misdemeanor. An affected individual may also file a civil claim in court seeking return of the document and pursuing damages resulting from the violation.
6 Steps Employers Should Consider
Colorado employers may want to consider the following six measures to ensure compliance:
1. Review document-handling practices. Identify every point at which original identification documents are collected, transported, scanned, stored, or returned.
2. Create a written notice and acknowledgment. Implement the use of a Colorado-specific form that explains the prohibition on retaining original identification documents and include an acknowledgement statement.
3. Prepare translated versions. Identify the languages commonly used in your workplace and establish a process for providing accurate translations when needed.
4. Limit access to originals. Consider adopting procedures requiring immediate return of original documents and prohibiting overnight or routine storage.
5. Update onboarding and reverification workflows. Incorporate the notice into initial hiring, rehire, reverification, and remote verification processes.
6. Review vendor practices. Confirm that staffing agencies, professional employer organizations, remote verification vendors, and other representatives follow the same restrictions.
7. Monitor for guidance. Colorado officials may soon issue a model notice, implementation guidance, or additional instructions addressing acknowledgment, translation, and retention practices. Pay attention to developments and adjust as necessary. The best way to keep these potential changes on your radar is to subscribe to the Fisher Phillips Insight system.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments affecting Form I-9 compliance and employment eligibility verification. If you have questions, consult your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Denver office or in the firm's Immigration Practice Group. Make sure that you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Jocelyn Campanaro
Partner
303.218.3667
jcampanaro@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Christopher Caravello
Associate
303.218.3642
ccaravello@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/what-do-colorado-employers-need-to-know-about-new-i-9-related-duties
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: California Employer Guide to Latest Update on Proposed PAGA Regulations - 7 Key Points on the LWDA's New Modifications
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026:
* * *
California Employer Guide to Latest Update on Proposed PAGA Regulations: 7 Key Points on the LWDA's New Modifications
California officials just announced significant changes to a proposed rule that aims to clarify administrative requirements and procedures under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The original version of the proposed rule brought a mixed bag for California employers, with some provisions aiding employers and possibly decreasing PAGA litigation, ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * California Employer Guide to Latest Update on Proposed PAGA Regulations: 7 Key Points on the LWDA's New Modifications California officials just announced significant changes to a proposed rule that aims to clarify administrative requirements and procedures under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The original version of the proposed rule brought a mixed bag for California employers, with some provisions aiding employers and possibly decreasing PAGA litigation,and others stymying settlements and leading to more court costs. The California Labor Workforce Development Agency's (LWDA) latest modifications to the proposed regulations address some of these concerns while raising others. The modifications, announced on August 3, have now entered a short public comment period that ends August 18. This Insight covers some quick background and gives employers seven key points on the modified proposed rule.
Quick Background
* PAGA and the LWDA. PAGA allows employees to sue their current or former employers to recover civil penalties for alleged violations of the state's Labor Code. PAGA actions are monitored by the LWDA and subject to certain administrative requirements.
* 2024 PAGA Reforms. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in July 2024 that made significant changes to PAGA as part of an effort to avoid a contentious PAGA-related proposition from appearing on the ballot later that year. The reforms offered much-needed relief to employers, such as restructured penalties and various measures aimed at reducing litigation, but also created some new challenges.
* 2026 Proposed Regulations. The LWDA issued a proposed rule in February 2026 that aims to bring long-awaited clarity to the administrative requirements and procedures under PAGA, especially in light of the 2024 reforms. The proposed rule was subject to a public comment period, which closed on March 23 (see FP's submitted comment here), as well as a public hearing on April 9 where the LWDA accepted additional public comments.
The Latest: 7 Key Points on the Modified Proposed PAGA Regulations
The LWDA issued a notice on August 3 about new modifications to the proposed PAGA rule.
The agency is now accepting comments relevant to these modifications, and the 15-day comment period will close on August 18. Here are seven key takeaways for employers, followed by information on how FP can assist with submitting comments to the LWDA.
1. Filing Requirements for Employers and Claimants
Employers (and claimants) would be required to file various documents related to PAGA claims with the LWDA through an online PAGA filing portal, and employers would need to submit responses via a specific link. As modified, the rule would also require employees to specify on their PAGA notices if they are asserting certain OSHA violations and list the specific Labor Code sections or violations allegedly violated by the employer.
These proposals, especially as modified, may help employers in identifying and correcting any alleged violations.
2. Measures to Reduce Abusive Filing Tactics
The original proposed rule included welcomed measures to rein in abusive tactics employed by "high-frequency filers" and "vexatious filers." The modified proposed rule ramps up these measures by:
* expanding "high-frequency filers" to include any attorney who has filed 100 or more (in addition to any law firm that has filed 200 or more) PAGA notices in the preceding 12 months; and
* making it harder for "non-compliant filers" (replacing "vexatious filers") to circumvent prefiling screening requirements.
However, the term "non-compliant filers" appears to be narrower in some respects than the "vexatious filers" term it replaced. For example, a vexatious filer was an attorney or firm that simply repeated non-compliant PAGA notices whereas to be deemed a non-compliant filer, an attorney must file three or more non-compliant PAGA notices in preceding 12 months and then continue to file non-compliant notices after warning from the LWDA.
3. Pre-Litigation Notice Rules
The proposed rule would require every PAGA notice to contain a short and plain statement of the facts and theories supporting each violation alleged and personally suffered by the claimant. As modified, it would also require:
* attorneys filing on behalf of aggrieved employees to include their name, State Bar membership number, and specific contact information in the PAGA notice and on the online submission form when filing through the portal;
* the PAGA notice form to describe the available prelitigation administrative review procedures available, including the employer's right to respond to the notice and any cure opportunities; and
* claimants who receive notice from the LWDA of deficiencies in their PAGA notice to file an amended notice within 30 days.
These changes should help employers investigate the nature of allegations and make informed decisions on whether to exercise their cure rights, while also allowing matters to proceed more efficiently.
4. Small Employer Cure Procedures
The proposed regulations would fill gaps left by the 2024 PAGA reforms regarding cure procedures for employers with fewer than 100 employees during the applicable one-year period. The rules would specify details related to submitting a confidential cure proposal, how the LWDA will review a cure proposal, scheduling cure conferences, preliminary cure determinations, and the process for resolving disputes over the cure process.
None of these proposed provisions were impacted by the LWDA's recent modifications.
5. Wage Statement Cure Procedures
The PAGA reforms allow employers of any size that have had a PAGA notice filed against them to cure alleged violations related to certain pay stub requirements. The proposed regulations add new procedural details related to these types of cure opportunities, such as setting a timeframe for filing the cure notice (within 33 days of the postmark date of the PAGA notice) and expanding the information required to be included in the cure notice.
While these proposals will increase administrative requirements for employers, they at least provide clarity on how to properly and timely cure alleged violations related to wage statements.
6. New Rules That Could Stymy Settlements and Increase Litigation
The proposed regulations establish specific rules and details related to the existing statutory requirement that proposed settlement agreements of PAGA civil actions be submitted to the LWDA. While the modifications addressed some of FP's initial concerns, these proposals still may have negative consequences for employers.
For example, one proposal would require the plaintiff proposing to settle PAGA claims to notify by email all other persons who have civil actions asserting PAGA claims pending against the same employer at that time, and anyone who receives such notice may submit comments to the LWDA within 21 days. This could be problematic for employers because it could potentially lead to fewer settlements and increased litigation.
Another proposal would prohibit claimants from amending a PAGA notice to add violations not alleged, or parties not included, "in a prior PAGA notice as part of or at any time after the claimant has reached a proposed settlement agreement with the employer in a pending civil action." However, the LWDA's recent modifications add an exception here that would allow a claimant to amend a PAGA notice if the amended notice includes specific information and statements. Here are two important considerations:
* This modification is a welcome change for employers, because the original version's blanket ban on settling plaintiffs amending PAGA notices would have led to piecemeal settlements and inadequate protection for employers.
* However, even the modified proposed rule could lead to increased litigation and expenses for employers (some plaintiffs may be unable or unwilling to satisfy the new requirements for filing an amended PAGA notice), as well as delayed settlements (especially because the modified proposal states that amended PAGA notices will be subject to the 65-day review, and, if applicable, 120-day investigation period.)
7. No Retroactivity Once Finalized
If finalized, the PAGA regulations would apply to all matters or cases pending at or filed after the rule's effective date. This was clarified in the recent modifications to the proposed rule. We expect the LWDA to issue final regulations later this year after reviewing all comments relevant to the modifications received by August 18.
* If your business supports or opposes the LWDA's recent modifications to the proposed PAGA rule, or would like to identify anything that may lead to uncertainty, you may consider submitting a public comment by August 18, 2026. Reach out to our FP Gov Team for guidance and best practices for submitting comments to the LWDA.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor the LWDA's proposed PAGA regulations and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in any of our California offices.
* * *
Related People
Nazanin Afshar
Partner
818.230.4259
nafshar@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
916.210.0400
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Ashton M. Riley
Partner
949.798.2186
ariley@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Hannah Sweiss
Partner
818.230.4255
hsweiss@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/california-employer-guide-to-latest-update-on-proposed-paga-regulations
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
California Employer Guide to Latest Update on Proposed PAGA Regulations: 7 Key Points on the LWDA's New Modifications
California officials just announced significant changes to a proposed rule that aims to clarify administrative requirements and procedures under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The original version of the proposed rule brought a mixed bag for California employers, with some provisions aiding employers and possibly decreasing PAGA litigation, ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 8 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 7, 2026: * * * California Employer Guide to Latest Update on Proposed PAGA Regulations: 7 Key Points on the LWDA's New Modifications California officials just announced significant changes to a proposed rule that aims to clarify administrative requirements and procedures under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The original version of the proposed rule brought a mixed bag for California employers, with some provisions aiding employers and possibly decreasing PAGA litigation,and others stymying settlements and leading to more court costs. The California Labor Workforce Development Agency's (LWDA) latest modifications to the proposed regulations address some of these concerns while raising others. The modifications, announced on August 3, have now entered a short public comment period that ends August 18. This Insight covers some quick background and gives employers seven key points on the modified proposed rule.
Quick Background
* PAGA and the LWDA. PAGA allows employees to sue their current or former employers to recover civil penalties for alleged violations of the state's Labor Code. PAGA actions are monitored by the LWDA and subject to certain administrative requirements.
* 2024 PAGA Reforms. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in July 2024 that made significant changes to PAGA as part of an effort to avoid a contentious PAGA-related proposition from appearing on the ballot later that year. The reforms offered much-needed relief to employers, such as restructured penalties and various measures aimed at reducing litigation, but also created some new challenges.
* 2026 Proposed Regulations. The LWDA issued a proposed rule in February 2026 that aims to bring long-awaited clarity to the administrative requirements and procedures under PAGA, especially in light of the 2024 reforms. The proposed rule was subject to a public comment period, which closed on March 23 (see FP's submitted comment here), as well as a public hearing on April 9 where the LWDA accepted additional public comments.
The Latest: 7 Key Points on the Modified Proposed PAGA Regulations
The LWDA issued a notice on August 3 about new modifications to the proposed PAGA rule.
The agency is now accepting comments relevant to these modifications, and the 15-day comment period will close on August 18. Here are seven key takeaways for employers, followed by information on how FP can assist with submitting comments to the LWDA.
1. Filing Requirements for Employers and Claimants
Employers (and claimants) would be required to file various documents related to PAGA claims with the LWDA through an online PAGA filing portal, and employers would need to submit responses via a specific link. As modified, the rule would also require employees to specify on their PAGA notices if they are asserting certain OSHA violations and list the specific Labor Code sections or violations allegedly violated by the employer.
These proposals, especially as modified, may help employers in identifying and correcting any alleged violations.
2. Measures to Reduce Abusive Filing Tactics
The original proposed rule included welcomed measures to rein in abusive tactics employed by "high-frequency filers" and "vexatious filers." The modified proposed rule ramps up these measures by:
* expanding "high-frequency filers" to include any attorney who has filed 100 or more (in addition to any law firm that has filed 200 or more) PAGA notices in the preceding 12 months; and
* making it harder for "non-compliant filers" (replacing "vexatious filers") to circumvent prefiling screening requirements.
However, the term "non-compliant filers" appears to be narrower in some respects than the "vexatious filers" term it replaced. For example, a vexatious filer was an attorney or firm that simply repeated non-compliant PAGA notices whereas to be deemed a non-compliant filer, an attorney must file three or more non-compliant PAGA notices in preceding 12 months and then continue to file non-compliant notices after warning from the LWDA.
3. Pre-Litigation Notice Rules
The proposed rule would require every PAGA notice to contain a short and plain statement of the facts and theories supporting each violation alleged and personally suffered by the claimant. As modified, it would also require:
* attorneys filing on behalf of aggrieved employees to include their name, State Bar membership number, and specific contact information in the PAGA notice and on the online submission form when filing through the portal;
* the PAGA notice form to describe the available prelitigation administrative review procedures available, including the employer's right to respond to the notice and any cure opportunities; and
* claimants who receive notice from the LWDA of deficiencies in their PAGA notice to file an amended notice within 30 days.
These changes should help employers investigate the nature of allegations and make informed decisions on whether to exercise their cure rights, while also allowing matters to proceed more efficiently.
4. Small Employer Cure Procedures
The proposed regulations would fill gaps left by the 2024 PAGA reforms regarding cure procedures for employers with fewer than 100 employees during the applicable one-year period. The rules would specify details related to submitting a confidential cure proposal, how the LWDA will review a cure proposal, scheduling cure conferences, preliminary cure determinations, and the process for resolving disputes over the cure process.
None of these proposed provisions were impacted by the LWDA's recent modifications.
5. Wage Statement Cure Procedures
The PAGA reforms allow employers of any size that have had a PAGA notice filed against them to cure alleged violations related to certain pay stub requirements. The proposed regulations add new procedural details related to these types of cure opportunities, such as setting a timeframe for filing the cure notice (within 33 days of the postmark date of the PAGA notice) and expanding the information required to be included in the cure notice.
While these proposals will increase administrative requirements for employers, they at least provide clarity on how to properly and timely cure alleged violations related to wage statements.
6. New Rules That Could Stymy Settlements and Increase Litigation
The proposed regulations establish specific rules and details related to the existing statutory requirement that proposed settlement agreements of PAGA civil actions be submitted to the LWDA. While the modifications addressed some of FP's initial concerns, these proposals still may have negative consequences for employers.
For example, one proposal would require the plaintiff proposing to settle PAGA claims to notify by email all other persons who have civil actions asserting PAGA claims pending against the same employer at that time, and anyone who receives such notice may submit comments to the LWDA within 21 days. This could be problematic for employers because it could potentially lead to fewer settlements and increased litigation.
Another proposal would prohibit claimants from amending a PAGA notice to add violations not alleged, or parties not included, "in a prior PAGA notice as part of or at any time after the claimant has reached a proposed settlement agreement with the employer in a pending civil action." However, the LWDA's recent modifications add an exception here that would allow a claimant to amend a PAGA notice if the amended notice includes specific information and statements. Here are two important considerations:
* This modification is a welcome change for employers, because the original version's blanket ban on settling plaintiffs amending PAGA notices would have led to piecemeal settlements and inadequate protection for employers.
* However, even the modified proposed rule could lead to increased litigation and expenses for employers (some plaintiffs may be unable or unwilling to satisfy the new requirements for filing an amended PAGA notice), as well as delayed settlements (especially because the modified proposal states that amended PAGA notices will be subject to the 65-day review, and, if applicable, 120-day investigation period.)
7. No Retroactivity Once Finalized
If finalized, the PAGA regulations would apply to all matters or cases pending at or filed after the rule's effective date. This was clarified in the recent modifications to the proposed rule. We expect the LWDA to issue final regulations later this year after reviewing all comments relevant to the modifications received by August 18.
* If your business supports or opposes the LWDA's recent modifications to the proposed PAGA rule, or would like to identify anything that may lead to uncertainty, you may consider submitting a public comment by August 18, 2026. Reach out to our FP Gov Team for guidance and best practices for submitting comments to the LWDA.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor the LWDA's proposed PAGA regulations and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in any of our California offices.
* * *
Related People
Nazanin Afshar
Partner
818.230.4259
nafshar@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
916.210.0400
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Ashton M. Riley
Partner
949.798.2186
ariley@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Hannah Sweiss
Partner
818.230.4255
hsweiss@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/california-employer-guide-to-latest-update-on-proposed-paga-regulations
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Commentary: Federal Communications Commission Prohibits the Sale of Certain Foreign-Produced Power Inverters
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Aug. 8 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 7, 2026, by associate Shannon Haen, counsel Beata K. Spuhler and partners Bernard E. Nodzon and Michael B. Lapicola:
* * *
Federal Communications Commission Prohibits the Sale of Certain Foreign-Produced Power Inverters
Impacting construction projects where power inverters have not yet been delivered
At a Glance
* Where power inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting the supplier to confirm that the applicable power inverter models have already received ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Aug. 8 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 7, 2026, by associate Shannon Haen, counsel Beata K. Spuhler and partners Bernard E. Nodzon and Michael B. Lapicola: * * * Federal Communications Commission Prohibits the Sale of Certain Foreign-Produced Power Inverters Impacting construction projects where power inverters have not yet been delivered At a Glance * Where power inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting the supplier to confirm that the applicable power inverter models have already receivedall applicable FCC equipment authorizations.
* If the power inverter supplier did not obtain FCC authorization, it must be determined: (1) if the supplier was required to obtain such authorization, (2) if it is now required to do so, or (3) if an exception can be utilized.
-
In July 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a determination prohibiting the sale of certain foreign-produced power inverters, updated the "Covered List" of communications equipment and services to include those power inverters deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States, and released FAQs on the updates to the Covered List.
What This Means for Inverter Procurement on Construction Projects
For inverter procurement on construction projects where the inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting confirmation from the inverter supplier that the applicable projects' power inverter models have already received all applicable FCC equipment authorizations.
This confirmation is needed to assess the potential impact of the FCC update on a project.
Potential Impacts
Prior Authorization Obtained
If the inverter supplier obtained prior authorization, then the July 2026 FCC communications likely do not impact a construction project.
No Prior Authorization Obtained
If the inverter supplier did not obtain the authorization, it must be determined: (1) if the supplier was required to obtain such authorization, (2) if it is now required to do so, or (3) if an exception can be utilized.
1. Supplier Previously Required to Obtain Authorization, but Did Not
If the inverter supplier was required to obtain authorization, but did not, the supplier may have breached the applicable law compliance provision that should be in the supply agreement.
2. Supplier Not Previously Required to Obtain Authorization
If the inverter supplier was not previously required to obtain authorization, we recommend determining if the supplier is now required to obtain authorization.
The supplier must confirm if the supplied product falls within the "Power Inverter" definition shown at the end of the July 27, 2026, notice:
Power Inverter: For the purpose of this determination, the term "power inverter" shall mean a device: (a) A bi-directional power device or system that converts direct current electricity to alternating current electricity, or converts alternating current electricity to direct current electricity, to include microinverters, string inverters, central inverters, and hybrid (battery-based) inverters; and (b) Contains components that enable remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections.
The definition includes a reference to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmission that may cause certain products to fall outside of the prohibition. Some supplier specifications reference an ethernet or hard-wire connection.
If the inverters do fall within the above definition, we recommend analyzing the appropriate change-in-law provisions in the supply agreement.
3. Can an Exception Be Utilized?
The FAQs include that it does not affect the "continued use of such devices ... already purchased":
* New foreign-produced advanced robotic devices and power inverters are generally prohibited from receiving FCC authorization to be imported, marketed, or sold in the U.S.
* However, this does not affect:
- The continued importing, marketing, or selling of existing models of advanced robotic devices and power inverters that that have already received FCC equipment authorization.
- The continued use of such devices that consumers have already purchased.
We do not yet have clear guidance on whether inverters that have been delivered but not commissioned meet the "use" qualification.
We also do not have clear guidance on whether prior partial payments to a supplier meet the "already purchased" qualification.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Shannon Haen
Associate
Denver
+1 303 607 3546
shannon.haen@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Michael B. Lapicola
Partner
Denver
+1 303 607 3680
mike.lapicola@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Bernard (B.J.) E. Nodzon
Partner
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 8768
bj.nodzon@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Beata K. Spuhler
Counsel
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 7789
beata.spuhler@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/8/federal-communications-commission-prohibits-the-sale-of-certain-foreign-produced-power-inverters
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Federal Communications Commission Prohibits the Sale of Certain Foreign-Produced Power Inverters
Impacting construction projects where power inverters have not yet been delivered
At a Glance
* Where power inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting the supplier to confirm that the applicable power inverter models have already received ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Aug. 8 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 7, 2026, by associate Shannon Haen, counsel Beata K. Spuhler and partners Bernard E. Nodzon and Michael B. Lapicola: * * * Federal Communications Commission Prohibits the Sale of Certain Foreign-Produced Power Inverters Impacting construction projects where power inverters have not yet been delivered At a Glance * Where power inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting the supplier to confirm that the applicable power inverter models have already receivedall applicable FCC equipment authorizations.
* If the power inverter supplier did not obtain FCC authorization, it must be determined: (1) if the supplier was required to obtain such authorization, (2) if it is now required to do so, or (3) if an exception can be utilized.
-
In July 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a determination prohibiting the sale of certain foreign-produced power inverters, updated the "Covered List" of communications equipment and services to include those power inverters deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States, and released FAQs on the updates to the Covered List.
What This Means for Inverter Procurement on Construction Projects
For inverter procurement on construction projects where the inverters have not yet been delivered, we recommend requesting confirmation from the inverter supplier that the applicable projects' power inverter models have already received all applicable FCC equipment authorizations.
This confirmation is needed to assess the potential impact of the FCC update on a project.
Potential Impacts
Prior Authorization Obtained
If the inverter supplier obtained prior authorization, then the July 2026 FCC communications likely do not impact a construction project.
No Prior Authorization Obtained
If the inverter supplier did not obtain the authorization, it must be determined: (1) if the supplier was required to obtain such authorization, (2) if it is now required to do so, or (3) if an exception can be utilized.
1. Supplier Previously Required to Obtain Authorization, but Did Not
If the inverter supplier was required to obtain authorization, but did not, the supplier may have breached the applicable law compliance provision that should be in the supply agreement.
2. Supplier Not Previously Required to Obtain Authorization
If the inverter supplier was not previously required to obtain authorization, we recommend determining if the supplier is now required to obtain authorization.
The supplier must confirm if the supplied product falls within the "Power Inverter" definition shown at the end of the July 27, 2026, notice:
Power Inverter: For the purpose of this determination, the term "power inverter" shall mean a device: (a) A bi-directional power device or system that converts direct current electricity to alternating current electricity, or converts alternating current electricity to direct current electricity, to include microinverters, string inverters, central inverters, and hybrid (battery-based) inverters; and (b) Contains components that enable remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections.
The definition includes a reference to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmission that may cause certain products to fall outside of the prohibition. Some supplier specifications reference an ethernet or hard-wire connection.
If the inverters do fall within the above definition, we recommend analyzing the appropriate change-in-law provisions in the supply agreement.
3. Can an Exception Be Utilized?
The FAQs include that it does not affect the "continued use of such devices ... already purchased":
* New foreign-produced advanced robotic devices and power inverters are generally prohibited from receiving FCC authorization to be imported, marketed, or sold in the U.S.
* However, this does not affect:
- The continued importing, marketing, or selling of existing models of advanced robotic devices and power inverters that that have already received FCC equipment authorization.
- The continued use of such devices that consumers have already purchased.
We do not yet have clear guidance on whether inverters that have been delivered but not commissioned meet the "use" qualification.
We also do not have clear guidance on whether prior partial payments to a supplier meet the "already purchased" qualification.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Shannon Haen
Associate
Denver
+1 303 607 3546
shannon.haen@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Michael B. Lapicola
Partner
Denver
+1 303 607 3680
mike.lapicola@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Bernard (B.J.) E. Nodzon
Partner
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 8768
bj.nodzon@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Beata K. Spuhler
Counsel
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 7789
beata.spuhler@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/8/federal-communications-commission-prohibits-the-sale-of-certain-foreign-produced-power-inverters
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Clark Hill: Colorado River Operations After 2026
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 8 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
Colorado River Operations After 2026
In Brief
The Bureau of Reclamation's July 2026 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) marks a major step toward replacing the Colorado River operating rules that expire at the end of 2026. The Preferred Alternative does not prescribe one fixed set of rules through 2036. Instead, it proposes a 10-year framework of operational principles, sideboards, and recurring decision points, with operating guidelines anticipated in two-year intervals unless a consensus-based ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 8 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update: * * * Colorado River Operations After 2026 In Brief The Bureau of Reclamation's July 2026 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) marks a major step toward replacing the Colorado River operating rules that expire at the end of 2026. The Preferred Alternative does not prescribe one fixed set of rules through 2036. Instead, it proposes a 10-year framework of operational principles, sideboards, and recurring decision points, with operating guidelines anticipated in two-year intervals unless a consensus-basedagreement supports a longer period.
For Basin water users, the practical result is a wider range of potential operations and more frequent planning decisions. The framework preserves room for negotiated solutions, but the modeled shortage levels, priority-based allocation rules, and unresolved interstate disagreements also create material legal and business uncertainty.
The Framework at a Glance
2 YEARS
ANTICIPATED OPERATING INTERVAL
5.0-12.0 MAF
MODELED LAKE POWELL RELEASE RANGE
UP TO 3.6 MAF
MODELED LOWER BASIN SHORTAGE
Modeling assumptions for the Representative Preferred Alternative. The 3.6 maf shortage figure includes assumptions about reductions to Mexico.
A Decision Framework -- Not Final Operating Rules
Reclamation's Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative designed to govern how operating guidelines are developed and adopted through 2036. The framework itself would remain in place, subject to later federal action and environmental review, while the specific operating guidelines for each interval would be developed using then-current hydrology, reservoir conditions, stakeholder input, and the framework's operating sideboards.
That distinction is central. The Final EIS does not set the actual operating rules for every year through 2036. Reclamation anticipates issuing each interval's guidelines through a separate decision document published in the Federal Register and then implementing those guidelines through Annual Operating Plans. The Final EIS uses a Representative Preferred Alternative as a modeling construct to evaluate the framework's potential effects; actual operating guidelines may differ within the analyzed sideboards.
For water users, the framework trades some long-term certainty for operational flexibility. It also creates recurring decision points at which new hydrology, negotiated agreements, and unresolved allocation issues may materially change supply conditions.
What The Representative Preferred Alternative Contemplates
Lake Powell and Upstream Operations
The modeled framework places a strong emphasis on protecting critical infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam. Lake Powell releases range from 5.0 to 12.0 million acre-feet (maf), depending primarily on Lake Powell elevation, with consultation over additional actions if the reservoir is projected to fall below elevation 3,500 feet.
The Final EIS also contemplates coordinated releases from the Colorado River Storage Project's Upper Initial Units--Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo reservoirs--when needed to protect critical Lake Powell elevations, generally within the scope of those facilities' existing Records of Decision. Voluntary Upper Basin conservation contributions of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year, subject to hydrologic conditions, are also within the analyzed framework.
Lake Mead and Lower Basin Shortages
The Representative Preferred Alternative models Lower Basin shortages of up to 3.6 maf, including assumptions about reductions to Mexico. For 2027-2028, shortages up to 1.5 maf would be distributed according to the approach developed by the Lower Division States; amounts above 1.5 maf would be distributed by priority. After 2028, shortages would be distributed by priority unless the states reach further agreements. Additional reductions would be considered if Lake Mead is projected to fall below elevation 1,000 feet.
These modeled assumptions show the potential scale and distribution of reductions within the framework. They should not be read as the final operating guidelines for every interval.
Why Basin Water Users Should Care
* Shorter planning cycles. A two-year operating cadence can move material supply decisions closer to the time when budgets, capital projects, crop plans, development schedules, and public-service commitments must be finalized.
* Priority exposure. If the states do not reach a later agreement, priority-based shortage allocation after 2028 could create substantially different outcomes among Lower Basin contractors and entitlement holders.
* Broader operational tools. Reservoir coordination, conservation, storage, and voluntary contribution programs may create opportunities, but participation and accounting terms will matter.
* More frequent federal decision points. Each interval may require close review of new decision documents, Annual Operating Plans, technical records, and stakeholder processes.
* Transaction and contract implications. Long-term water, power, real estate, financing, and infrastructure contracts should address shortage, replacement supply, delay, and cost risk.
Litigation Risk Remains Material--But Is Not Inevitable.
The litigation risk is material. The Final EIS follows more than four years of federal, state, Tribal, and stakeholder engagement without a long-term consensus among the seven Basin States, and Arizona officials have publicly objected that elements of the federal approach could place a disproportionate burden on Arizona water users.
At the same time, the structure of the Preferred Alternative creates potential off-ramps. The anticipated two-year intervals allow the states and other parties to continue negotiating, and consensus-based agreements could support guidelines of longer duration. Because the Final EIS establishes a process and sideboards rather than one, fixed allocation regime, the legal posture may evolve as later decision documents adopt specific operating guidelines.
If the Upper and Lower Basin States remain divided over shortage sharing or key Colorado River Compact obligations, interstate litigation remains a realistic possibility. Challenges to later federal operating decisions may also arise. Litigation should be treated as a planning risk, but not as a predetermined outcome.
What Clients Should Do Now
* Quantify exposure. Identify the priority, contract, facility, and operational assumptions underlying each Colorado River-dependent supply or obligation.
* Stress-test the modeled range. Evaluate financial and operational performance across the 5.0-12.0 maf Lake Powell release range and shortage scenarios up to 3.6 maf, with special attention to priority-based outcomes after 2028.
* Review critical agreements. Assess whether water, power, financing, real estate, and project documents adequately address shortage allocation, substitute supply, cost escalation, schedule impacts, and regulatory change.
* Track the next decisions. Monitor Federal Register notices, operating-guideline development, Annual Operating Plans, and stakeholder processes; consider whether technical or legal submissions are warranted.
* Build contingency options. Assess conservation, storage, alternative-supply, portfolio, and transaction strategies before a shortage or project deadline becomes acute.
The Bottom Line
The Final EIS moves the post-2026 process forward without resolving the Basin's hardest allocation disputes. Its adaptive structure may help the system respond to changing conditions and preserve space for agreement, but it also shifts critical choices into recurring decision cycles. Water users should plan now for both shortage risk and process risk.
Clark Hill's Water team advises public and private clients on Colorado River matters, water-supply planning and transactions, regulatory participation, infrastructure and project strategy, and related litigation. We can help evaluate exposure, develop contingency strategies, and engage as the next federal and interstate decisions take shape.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/colorado-river-final-eis-post-2026-water-planning-risks/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Colorado River Operations After 2026
In Brief
The Bureau of Reclamation's July 2026 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) marks a major step toward replacing the Colorado River operating rules that expire at the end of 2026. The Preferred Alternative does not prescribe one fixed set of rules through 2036. Instead, it proposes a 10-year framework of operational principles, sideboards, and recurring decision points, with operating guidelines anticipated in two-year intervals unless a consensus-based ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 8 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update: * * * Colorado River Operations After 2026 In Brief The Bureau of Reclamation's July 2026 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) marks a major step toward replacing the Colorado River operating rules that expire at the end of 2026. The Preferred Alternative does not prescribe one fixed set of rules through 2036. Instead, it proposes a 10-year framework of operational principles, sideboards, and recurring decision points, with operating guidelines anticipated in two-year intervals unless a consensus-basedagreement supports a longer period.
For Basin water users, the practical result is a wider range of potential operations and more frequent planning decisions. The framework preserves room for negotiated solutions, but the modeled shortage levels, priority-based allocation rules, and unresolved interstate disagreements also create material legal and business uncertainty.
The Framework at a Glance
2 YEARS
ANTICIPATED OPERATING INTERVAL
5.0-12.0 MAF
MODELED LAKE POWELL RELEASE RANGE
UP TO 3.6 MAF
MODELED LOWER BASIN SHORTAGE
Modeling assumptions for the Representative Preferred Alternative. The 3.6 maf shortage figure includes assumptions about reductions to Mexico.
A Decision Framework -- Not Final Operating Rules
Reclamation's Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative designed to govern how operating guidelines are developed and adopted through 2036. The framework itself would remain in place, subject to later federal action and environmental review, while the specific operating guidelines for each interval would be developed using then-current hydrology, reservoir conditions, stakeholder input, and the framework's operating sideboards.
That distinction is central. The Final EIS does not set the actual operating rules for every year through 2036. Reclamation anticipates issuing each interval's guidelines through a separate decision document published in the Federal Register and then implementing those guidelines through Annual Operating Plans. The Final EIS uses a Representative Preferred Alternative as a modeling construct to evaluate the framework's potential effects; actual operating guidelines may differ within the analyzed sideboards.
For water users, the framework trades some long-term certainty for operational flexibility. It also creates recurring decision points at which new hydrology, negotiated agreements, and unresolved allocation issues may materially change supply conditions.
What The Representative Preferred Alternative Contemplates
Lake Powell and Upstream Operations
The modeled framework places a strong emphasis on protecting critical infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam. Lake Powell releases range from 5.0 to 12.0 million acre-feet (maf), depending primarily on Lake Powell elevation, with consultation over additional actions if the reservoir is projected to fall below elevation 3,500 feet.
The Final EIS also contemplates coordinated releases from the Colorado River Storage Project's Upper Initial Units--Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo reservoirs--when needed to protect critical Lake Powell elevations, generally within the scope of those facilities' existing Records of Decision. Voluntary Upper Basin conservation contributions of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year, subject to hydrologic conditions, are also within the analyzed framework.
Lake Mead and Lower Basin Shortages
The Representative Preferred Alternative models Lower Basin shortages of up to 3.6 maf, including assumptions about reductions to Mexico. For 2027-2028, shortages up to 1.5 maf would be distributed according to the approach developed by the Lower Division States; amounts above 1.5 maf would be distributed by priority. After 2028, shortages would be distributed by priority unless the states reach further agreements. Additional reductions would be considered if Lake Mead is projected to fall below elevation 1,000 feet.
These modeled assumptions show the potential scale and distribution of reductions within the framework. They should not be read as the final operating guidelines for every interval.
Why Basin Water Users Should Care
* Shorter planning cycles. A two-year operating cadence can move material supply decisions closer to the time when budgets, capital projects, crop plans, development schedules, and public-service commitments must be finalized.
* Priority exposure. If the states do not reach a later agreement, priority-based shortage allocation after 2028 could create substantially different outcomes among Lower Basin contractors and entitlement holders.
* Broader operational tools. Reservoir coordination, conservation, storage, and voluntary contribution programs may create opportunities, but participation and accounting terms will matter.
* More frequent federal decision points. Each interval may require close review of new decision documents, Annual Operating Plans, technical records, and stakeholder processes.
* Transaction and contract implications. Long-term water, power, real estate, financing, and infrastructure contracts should address shortage, replacement supply, delay, and cost risk.
Litigation Risk Remains Material--But Is Not Inevitable.
The litigation risk is material. The Final EIS follows more than four years of federal, state, Tribal, and stakeholder engagement without a long-term consensus among the seven Basin States, and Arizona officials have publicly objected that elements of the federal approach could place a disproportionate burden on Arizona water users.
At the same time, the structure of the Preferred Alternative creates potential off-ramps. The anticipated two-year intervals allow the states and other parties to continue negotiating, and consensus-based agreements could support guidelines of longer duration. Because the Final EIS establishes a process and sideboards rather than one, fixed allocation regime, the legal posture may evolve as later decision documents adopt specific operating guidelines.
If the Upper and Lower Basin States remain divided over shortage sharing or key Colorado River Compact obligations, interstate litigation remains a realistic possibility. Challenges to later federal operating decisions may also arise. Litigation should be treated as a planning risk, but not as a predetermined outcome.
What Clients Should Do Now
* Quantify exposure. Identify the priority, contract, facility, and operational assumptions underlying each Colorado River-dependent supply or obligation.
* Stress-test the modeled range. Evaluate financial and operational performance across the 5.0-12.0 maf Lake Powell release range and shortage scenarios up to 3.6 maf, with special attention to priority-based outcomes after 2028.
* Review critical agreements. Assess whether water, power, financing, real estate, and project documents adequately address shortage allocation, substitute supply, cost escalation, schedule impacts, and regulatory change.
* Track the next decisions. Monitor Federal Register notices, operating-guideline development, Annual Operating Plans, and stakeholder processes; consider whether technical or legal submissions are warranted.
* Build contingency options. Assess conservation, storage, alternative-supply, portfolio, and transaction strategies before a shortage or project deadline becomes acute.
The Bottom Line
The Final EIS moves the post-2026 process forward without resolving the Basin's hardest allocation disputes. Its adaptive structure may help the system respond to changing conditions and preserve space for agreement, but it also shifts critical choices into recurring decision cycles. Water users should plan now for both shortage risk and process risk.
Clark Hill's Water team advises public and private clients on Colorado River matters, water-supply planning and transactions, regulatory participation, infrastructure and project strategy, and related litigation. We can help evaluate exposure, develop contingency strategies, and engage as the next federal and interstate decisions take shape.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/colorado-river-final-eis-post-2026-water-planning-risks/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]