ABOUT PROJECT FORWARD

Led by BRIDGE, Project FORWARD is a cross-industry initiative, designed to chart our collective path forward and meet the current moment head-on. In partnership with top experts in academia, law and our board members, we are dedicated to equipping, educating, and empowering leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), marketing, and business to continue to drive inclusive innovation and sustainable growth.

 

Every Friday, Project FORWARD provides critical updates on executive orders (EO) and legislative developments, featuring legal interpretations from Stacy Hawkins, Esq., Diversity & Employment Practices Consultant and Rutgers Professor of Law, and Jessica Golden Cortes, Partner, Labor + Employment Group, Davis+Gilbert LLP. We will also include the BRIDGE POV and tangible actions to consider.*

 

PLEASE NOTE: INCLUDED IN THIS ISSUE IS A NEW SECTION THAT DEALS WITH THE TRAVEL BAN AND ESCALATION OF ICE RAIDS, featuring legal interpretation from Rose Cuison-Villazor, Esq, Professor of Law and Chancellor's Social Justice Scholar, Director, Rutgers Center for Immigrant Justice, Rutgers School of Law.

 

We encourage our community to remain informed and proactive. If you have questions or insights you’d like to share, please email [email protected].

 

FOR PAST ISSUES OF PROJECT FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE.

 

*These Project FORWARD updates should not be construed as legal advice or counsel. They are for educational and instructive purposes only, to aid our understanding about how best to actively continue our mission in response to this moment. 

UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS

For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:

• Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing: Executive Order # 14151
• Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: Executive Order # 14173
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-DEI EXECUTIVE ORDERS

• Order Granting in Part and Denying In Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Lambda Legal
• Federal Court Blocks Trump Anti-Equity and Anti-Transgender Executive Orders Targeting LGBTQ and HIV-Serving Nonprofits

 

OVERVIEW

The legal pushback against the three anti-DEI executive orders gains momentum as judges signal likely constitutional violations. 

 

As reported in Issue 2, multiple LGBTQ+ rights organizations, led by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court challenging the above three EOs. The lawsuit alleged that the EOs are unlawful on many of the same grounds asserted in the lawsuit filed in Baltimore Federal Court by a coalition of organizations led by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. 

 

On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the three anti-DEI executive orders, siding with the coalition of nine LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. The court’s 52-page opinion found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving the orders violate constitutional protections, including equal protection, free speech, due process, and the separation of powers. 

 

This follows a pattern of similar injunctions issued by federal courts in D.C., Seattle, Rhode Island, and Illinois—temporarily halting enforcement of provisions ranging from bans on gender-affirming care for transgender inmates to the termination of equity-focused grants and anti-DEI certification requirements. Together, these rulings underscore the growing legal resistance to politically motivated efforts to dismantle civil rights protections under the guise of executive authority.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

While these rulings are preliminary, the legal reasoning is forceful—and consistent. Multiple federal courts have now signaled that the administration’s executive orders are likely unconstitutional, particularly in their attempts to suppress protected speech, target specific groups, and override congressional authority. The growing stack of injunctions reflects a broader judicial pattern: courts are unwilling to permit executive overreach. 

 

Together, these rulings underscore the mounting legal resistance to politically motivated efforts to dismantle civil rights protections under the guise of executive authority.

BRIDGE POV

This is another consequential ruling rejecting the anti-DEI executive orders. Federal courts across the country are pushing back—decisively—against executive overreach aimed at dismantling civil rights protections under the guise of policy. These injunctions aren’t just procedural—they are constitutionally relevant. Judges are affirming that protected speech, equal protection, and due process remain the letter of the law. 

 

The signal is clear: when politics tests the boundaries of power, it is the Constitution—and unwavering consistency with your values—that must hold. This is not a gray area. Companies remain subject to binding state and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, gender expression and other protected characteristics.

 

In this moment, principled leadership isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also risk mitigation. 

 

1. Anchor Your Actions in Constitutional Principles: Reaffirm your commitment to nondiscrimination and inclusion—not as political positions, but as reflections of constitutional rights and business imperatives. Use recent court rulings as reinforcement, not rationale for retreat.
2. Audit for Legal Alignment Across Jurisdictions: Partner with legal and compliance teams to ensure that your policies, benefits, and practices are aligned with current state and local protections—especially where they exceed or differ from federal guidance.
3. Fortify Internal and External Ecosystems: Ensure DEI-related partnerships, contracts, ERGs, and grant programs remain active and values-aligned. If challenged, be prepared to show both legal grounding and strategic business rationale.

NCPPR ANTI-DEI CAMPAIGN FACES BROAD RESISTANCE AS INVESTORS REAFFIRM INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

OVERVIEW

In a decisive week for corporate governance, shareholders at major companies rejected anti-DEI proposals, the majority of which were filed by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) and its Free Enterprise Project. 

 

From calls to abandon the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index to demands for DEI program rollbacks and risk audits, the proposals were met with overwhelming opposition—even at companies navigating complex political and reputational terrain. While some final vote tallies are still pending, the trend is clear: NCPPR’s campaign is faltering in the face of investor confidence in inclusive practices and leadership.

 

WALMART
As reported last week, on Thursday, June 5, Walmart shareholders overwhelmingly rejected an anti-DEI proposal put forth by the conservative group, National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). The results, which were not available at the time of publishing, were close to 100%. CEO Doug McMillon emphasized that “Walmart is a ‘Walmart for everyone and that has not changed’” and confirmed continued service to the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month.
 

NETFLIX

On June 5, Netflix shareholders voted down NCPPR’s anti-DEI proposal - effectively with 100-0 - while approving all management resolutions. The Netflix board reaffirmed that it “work[s] hard to ensure our workforce is as diverse as the members we serve.”

 

ALPHABET (GOOGLE)

At its June 6 annual meeting, Alphabet shareholders rejected two anti-DEI proposals urging the company to end its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI). Filed separately by Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ and the National Center for Public Policy Research, both proposals claimed that Alphabet’s engagement with the CEI introduced ideological bias into corporate governance. Vote percentages are not yet available.

 

TARGET

At its June 11 annual meeting, Target shareholders voted 98% against NCPPR’s anti-DEI proposal, in line with the board’s recommendation. This comes despite the company’s recent rollback of several DEI initiatives and a subsequent decline in sales earlier this year. The vote signals continued shareholder support for inclusive governance, even amid shifting internal strategies and external pressures.

 

DICK'S SPORTING GOODS

On June 11, Dick’s Sporting Goods rejected NCPPR’s anti-DEI proposal requesting a report on affirmative-action risks. The board stated, “We are proud of our culture… a strategic differentiator,” and affirmed “zero-tolerance for acts of racism and discrimination."

 

AMERICAN AIRLINES

At its June 11 meeting, American Airlines shareholders rejected NCPPR’s proposal calling on the airline to end its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, despite the company maintaining a perfect CEI score for 20 years. Vote percentages are not yet available. 

 

CATERPILLAR

At its June 11 virtual annual meeting, shareholders voted on Proposal 6, filed by the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project, which requested that Caterpillar cease its DEI policies and structure. The board strongly recommended opposing the proposal, stating that it inappropriately restricted the company’s ability to manage its workforce and that Caterpillar remains “committed to fostering an inclusive environment and a workforce that is representative of the diverse customers and communities we serve around the globe.” Vote tallies are not yet available; results are pending.

 

LULULEMON

At its June 11 annual meeting, shareholders voted down a proposal requesting a report on “discrimination risks related to charitable partnerships.” The proposal was filed by Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ, through the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET), in coordination with Bowyer Research. It specifically referenced Lululemon’s past donations to organizations like Black Lives Matter. The board recommended voting against the measure, affirming the company’s “longstanding mission and values of effecting meaningful, positive change.” Vote percentages are not yet available. 

 

BRIDGE POV

This week’s shareholder results represent a decisive rebuke of efforts to dismantle DEI through shareholder pressure, underscoring NCPPR’s diminishing traction. With near unanimous votes, across industries, shareholders are sending a clear signal: inclusion is not a liability, it's a leadership imperative.

 

Even in companies navigating reputational scrutiny or internal pullbacks, investors are unequivocal in their support of inclusive governance -  there is no investor appetite for politicized rollbacks of DEI.

 

This is not a time to retreat, it’s time to get sharper. Despite the collision with politics, discipline, transparency, and business alignment remain your strongest defenses.

 

1. Use Shareholder Outcomes as Strategic Cover: The rejection of these proposals offers more than data—it offers protection. Cite these outcomes in boardrooms, public filings, and legal risk planning to demonstrate that DEI is aligned with both fiduciary duty and investor confidence.
2. Frame DEI as a Performance Strategy—Not a Social Statement: Proposals are failing where DEI is integrated into growth, innovation, and workforce strategy—not treated as symbolic. Make sure your positioning reflects that in both narrative and metrics.
3. Scenario-Plan for 2026 Proxy Season: Assume more proposals are coming. Align legal, investor relations, and DEI leaders now to proactively scenario-plan language, documentation, and shareholder engagement in advance of next year’s cycle.

ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI

• Ethics Complaint Against Pamela Jo Bondi Submitted to the Florida Bar Association

 

OVERVIEW

On June 5, 2025, a coalition of attorneys, law professors, and former judges filed a formal ethics complaint with the Florida Bar against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, accusing her of misconduct that “threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.” 

 

The complaint alleges that Bondi, both personally and through senior leadership, pressured Department of Justice lawyers to violate their professional obligations—threatening discipline or termination for failing to engage in what her office termed “zealous advocacy.” 

 

Citing multiple cases of DOJ attorneys being fired or forced to resign for refusing to advance legally indefensible positions, the complaint draws comparisons to recent state bar sanctions against former Trump-affiliated lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, both disbarred for unethical conduct related to 2020 election fraud claims on his behalf.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

While the outcome of the complaint remains pending, the legal implications are significant. The allegations point to a systemic effort by the Attorney General to pressure career DOJ lawyers into violating ethical standards—standards that exist to safeguard both the rule of law and the independence of the legal system. If substantiated, these actions could constitute not only professional misconduct, but also grounds for disbarment.

 

This complaint follows a growing pattern of accountability through state bar associations, particularly in the wake of post-2020 election misconduct. By invoking disbarment precedents like John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, the filing signals that no title or office exempts a lawyer from ethical responsibility. It also serves as a reminder to legal departments and general counsel: professional standards must hold—even when leadership does not.
 

BRIDGE POV

This is not just a legal ethics complaint—it’s a test of professional boundaries at the highest levels of government. When an Attorney General is accused of pressuring career lawyers to ignore ethical obligations in favor of political outcomes, it raises urgent questions about the independence of the legal profession.  And while the investigation centers on the Department of Justice, the implications extend beyond Washington. 

 

For corporate leaders, the lesson is clear: legal compliance begins with ethical consistency. Boards, general counsel and executive teams must ensure their legal departments are equipped and empowered to uphold professional standards, even when facing political pressure.  In this climate, the most courageous act is integrity. 

 

1. Empower Legal to Prioritize Ethics Over Expediency: Ensure your legal and compliance teams have the autonomy—and board support—to push back on directives that cross ethical lines. Protect dissent and document it. The cost of silence can be far greater than the cost of delay.
2. Establish a Red Line Protocol for Ethical Risk: Create clear escalation paths when legal staff are pressured to act outside their professional obligations. This should include direct access to the board or audit committee for whistleblower-level concerns—before reputational damage is done.
3. Reaffirm Your Culture of Integrity: Use this moment to restate your company’s commitment to legal ethics, not just compliance. Include it in CEO communications, GC briefings, and DEI commitments. Make it clear that ethics isn’t optional—it’s operational.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPENS INVESTIGATION INTO RHODE ISLAND’S EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

• Justice Department Launches Investigation into Rhode Island for Race-Based Employment Preferences in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

 

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the state of Rhode Island, alleging that its Affirmative Action Plan—mandated by state law—may violate federal civil rights statutes. 

 

The DOJ claims Rhode Island has effectively instituted race-based employment quotas through the hiring targets established under R.I. Gen. Laws §28-5.1-3, which require state agencies to promote equal opportunity and address the enduring effects of past discrimination. 

 

The law directs agencies to establish diversity goals aimed at ensuring the state workforce reflects the demographic composition of its population. Federal investigators argue these goals may cross the line into impermissible racial classification under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Although the Trump Administration’s Executive Order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity revoked federal support for affirmative action, many states—including Rhode Island—continue to uphold their own affirmative action statutes. Now, alongside attempts to enforce the anti-DEI certification requirement (which has been enjoined by a federal court), the DOJ is pursuing a second strategy: targeted enforcement against state-level affirmative action policies under the Civil Rights Act.

 

Under existing legal precedent, the use of explicit racial quotas in hiring is categorically prohibited. While there is some limited leeway for narrowly tailored remedies to address proven underrepresentation, there is no legal protection for hiring practices that use race or gender considerations to promote general diversity or to mirror population demographics.

 

Though the Trump-era executive orders lack the force of binding law, they are informing a broader legal and political strategy—and companies or government entities operating under affirmative action frameworks should work closely with legal counsel to assess the risks and ensure compliance with prevailing federal standards.
 

BRIDGE POV

This enforcement action marks an escalation in the federal government’s campaign against state-level DEI and affirmative action policies with a coordinated legal strategy to dismantle inclusion frameworks under the banner of civil rights.

 

While the language of “equal protection” may sound neutral, the intent behind these actions is clear: to eliminate proactive equity measures, even those grounded in state law and historical precedent. For organizations operating in states with affirmative action statutes, the risk isn’t hypothetical—it’s active and growing.

 

This is where leadership matters. Staying compliant doesn’t mean abandoning commitment. It means understanding the shifting legal terrain and ensuring your values are implemented in ways that are both lawful and defensible.

 

1. Conduct a Legal Audit of Affirmative Action and DEI Programs: If your organization operates in a state with affirmative action requirements or goals, work with counsel to review how those goals are structured, documented, and communicated. Ensure that any use of demographic data is aligned with current federal legal standards and not framed as quotas or proportional representation.
2. Separate Legal Risk from Political Pressure: Don’t confuse executive orders with enforceable law. Even as political directives shift, your legal obligations and liabilities are defined by statute and case law. Stay anchored in that distinction—and scenario-plan accordingly.
3. Prepare for Federal Scrutiny: This enforcement action shows that no geography is immune. If you operate in a state with affirmative action laws (like California, New York, or Rhode Island), develop a federal response plan that includes preemptive legal documentation, policy framing, and internal communication protocols.

TRUMP ISSUED A PROCLAMATION BANNING TRAVEL TO THE US BY FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM SELECT COUNTRIES

• Restricting The Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats – The White House

 

OVERVIEW

On June 9, 2025, shortly after the alleged attack by an Egyptian national in Boulder, Colorado, the Trump Administration issued a presidential proclamation imposing sweeping travel restrictions on foreign nationals from 19 countries, citing inadequate vetting procedures and national security concerns. 

 

The proclamation enacts a total ban on entry to the United States for foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It also restricts travel for foreign nationals holding immigrant visas and B-1, B-2, F, M, or J non-immigrant visas from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

 

The Order purports to identify countries for which there are inadequate vetting measures for foreign travelers and thereby concludes that travel to the US from such countries poses a threat to US national security.  While it does not currently include Egypt, the proclamation states that Egypt's screening and vetting processes are being reviewed.

 

While the order includes limited exceptions—such as lawful permanent residents, dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-restricted country, certain NATO personnel, and Olympic or Paralympic athletes—it significantly expands the framework of the previous “travel ban” policies. The restrictions will be subject to administrative review within 90 days and every 180 days thereafter but remain in force unless formally rescinded. 

 

Several countries affected by the travel ban have issued formal condemnations, calling the policy discriminatory and politically motivated. Regional bodies and international partners have warned that the restrictions risk damaging diplomatic relationships, disrupting trade and education ties, and undermining global cooperation.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This Proclamation revives a legal question first raised during President Trump’s initial term: the scope of presidential authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. INA 212(f) empowers the President to suspend the entry of foreign nationals deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

 

On January 27, 2017, Trump issued his first travel ban—widely referred to as a “Muslim ban” due to its focus on Muslim-majority countries. After facing immediate legal challenges and undergoing two revisions, the third version was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). The Court, applying rational basis review, found the administration had provided sufficient national security justification. Emphasizing that INA 212(f) “exudes deference to the President,” the Court affirmed that the statute legitimately permits restrictions aimed at nationals “who cannot be adequately vetted.”

 

The upheld ban remained in effect until January 2021, when it was revoked by President Biden. Four years later, another travel ban is back in effect. On January 20, 2025—Trump’s first day back in office—he issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to identify countries with inadequate screening and vetting protocols. Based on a report submitted in April and what appears to coincide with the timing of the Boulder, Colorado attack by an Egyptian national, Trump issued the new Proclamation on June 4, 2025, again invoking INA 212(f) and citing national security and public safety concerns, while expressing a willingness to work with countries that improve their practices.

 

Textually, this Proclamation appears to have been drafted to withstand legal scrutiny and shares similarities with the version upheld by the Court in 2018. Both cite INA 212(f) as their legal foundation and emphasize national security, vetting, and information-sharing deficiencies. Several countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, and Yemen—appear on both restricted lists.

 

A key distinction in the 2025 version is its explicit reference to visa overstays as a justification for the restrictions.  As such, close attention should be paid to its implementation to assess its compliance with the Constitution and other applicable laws.

 

As of now, no legal challenges have been filed against the new Proclamation. Organizations should consult legal counsel to assess potential operational impacts and identify strategies to mitigate business or talent disruption.

 

BRIDGE POV

This Proclamation is not just a national security directive—it is a political signal. Issued in the wake of the Molotov cocktail bombing in Colorado, allegedly committed by an Egyptian national who overstayed a tourist visa, the timing of the travel ban suggests a reactive posture. Yet Egypt—the country of origin in that case—is notably absent from the list of banned nations.

 

The Proclamation cites visa overstays as a central justification, pointing to overstay rates among certain countries. But here again, the logic falters: some countries with lower overstay rates are targeted, while others with higher absolute numbers of overstays are not. This inconsistency raises serious questions about the underlying criteria and whether the policy serves national security—or reinforces a selective, politically motivated narrative.

 

For global employers, universities, and organizations with international talent pipelines, this is not a peripheral issue. Travel bans like this one disrupt operations, fracture families, and undermine trust—particularly among communities already vulnerable to bias and exclusion.

 

1.  Identify and Support Affected Employees, Students, and Partners: Immediately audit your workforce, talent pipeline, academic enrollment, and vendor relationships for individuals impacted by the ban. Provide legal counsel access, visa support, and HR accommodations as needed. Silence in moments like this erodes trust—proactive communication builds it.
2. Develop a Rapid-Response Playbook for Travel Disruptions: Codify internal protocols for how your organization will respond to sudden travel restrictions, including communications, policy flexibilities (e.g., remote work, deferred start dates), and legal review. Assign roles and escalation paths now—before you need them.
3. Use Your Voice Strategically: Where appropriate, engage with industry coalitions, chambers of commerce, and higher education alliances to issue statements or join amicus efforts challenging discriminatory policy. Elevate the business and human cost—not as political commentary, but as a defense of workforce stability, inclusion, and economic resilience.

THE ESCALATION OF ICE RAIDS: BE PREPARED

• Protecting the American People Against Invasion: Executive Order # 14159 
• People are Not Documents

 

OVERVIEW

On January 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14159: “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” a sweeping directive to the executive branch to escalate enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. 

 

While the order carries the force of law within the federal government, its implementation is still subject to existing legal frameworks, statutory limits, and judicial review. The EO directs the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies—including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to remove prior constraints on interior enforcement, expand I-9 audits and worksite raids, and resume operations in locations previously deemed sensitive, such as schools and hospitals.

 

It also calls for increased coordination with state and local law enforcement, including the use of National Guard deployments in support of immigration activity. Though framed as a national security measure, EO 14159 has resulted in a dramatic escalation of workplace and community-level immigration enforcement across the country.

 

BRIDGE POV

The escalation of ICE enforcement under Executive Order 14159 represents a significant operational shift—but not a change in the law. The order directs federal agencies to increase workplace inspections, expand coordination with local law enforcement, and resume activity in previously restricted spaces such as schools and hospitals. While these actions may feel new in scale or visibility, the underlying legal boundaries remain unchanged.

 

That distinction is critical. Companies are not powerless in the face of enforcement. Employers still retain the right to limit access to non-public areas without a judicial warrant, and employees still have the right to remain silent and speak to an attorney.

 

Now is the time to ensure your teams are informed and prepared. Clear protocols, designated points of contact, and proactive communication can prevent confusion, reduce legal exposure, and protect the rights of everyone in your workplace.

 

NOTE:

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, may investigate your workplace based on a lead, complaint, or other factors. If you don’t have a worksite enforcement plan in place, consult an immigration attorney to ensure you’re prepared for an unannounced visit. 

 

In the meantime, if HSI arrives at your workplace, keep the following in mind:
 

Rights of Private Companies (Employers)

1. Warrant Requirement (Non-Public Areas)
   • ICE cannot enter non-public areas (e.g., offices, warehouses, backrooms) without a judicial warrant signed by a judge.
   • Administrative warrants (Form I-9 audit notices or ICE-issued subpoenas) do not grant entry.
2. Consent Matters
   • Employers can refuse entry unless ICE presents a valid judicial warrant.
   • If the employer gives verbal or written consent, ICE may enter.
3. I-9 Audits
   • ICE may issue a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to audit employee I-9 forms.
   • Employers have 3 business days to respond; do not waive this right.
4. Employee Information
   • You are not required to provide private employee information (like immigration status) without a subpoena or warrant.
5. Non-Retaliation
   • It is unlawful to fire or retaliate against an employee for asserting their rights or immigration status.

 

Rights of Employees

1. Right to Remain Silent
   • Employees do not have to answer questions about immigration status, birthplace, or citizenship.
   • They can
2. No Documents Required On-Site
   • Employees are not required to carry immigration documents at work.
3. Protection from Unlawful Search
   • ICE cannot search bags, lockers, or belongings without consent or a judicial warrant.
4. Right to Speak to an Attorney
   • If detained, individuals can request to speak to a lawyer and do not have to sign anything without legal counsel.
5. Do Not Flee
   • Fleeing or resisting can be used against someone. It is better to remain calm and silent.

 

Best Practices for Employers

• Train managers on how to respond to ICE visits.
• Have a designated point person for handling ICE encounters.
• Post “Know Your Rights” materials in break rooms.
• Avoid self-auditing immigration records in a discriminatory way.

 

THIS IS AN EVOLVING SITUATION WHICH WE WILL MONITOR AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE WHERE RELEVANT

COMMUNITY EVENTS

BRIDGE invites everyone to join for our monthly Community Calls which take place on the last Thursday of every month, gathering DEI marketing, and business leaders committed to driving systemic change within our organizations and the industry at large.

 

Our next call is Thursday, June 26th from 12-1p ET.

 

Pride is not just about celebration. It’s about visibility, safety, and the fundamental right to exist without fear. This year, with LGBTQ+ rights under coordinated attack, it is only fitting that our June call will honor Pride month. Join us as we discuss the complexities this population faces and how we can support them.