Trent Cotney, Partner, Adams & Reese, LLP and FRSA General Counsel - August 2026
The United States Supreme Court recently issued two immigration decisions that should get the attention of roofing contractors. Although neither case was written specifically for the construction industry, both decisions affect the legal environment in which contractors hire, staff, schedule and manage labor. For an industry already dealing with workforce shortages, aggressive immigration enforcement and increased scrutiny of employment practices, these rulings are more than political headlines.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Court addressed Temporary Protected Status, commonly known as TPS. TPS allows certain foreign nationals from designated countries affected by war, natural disaster or other extraordinary conditions to live and work lawfully in the United States for a limited period. The case involved the federal government’s termination of TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. Although the immediate impact falls on Haitian and Syrian TPS holders, the Court’s interpretation of the TPS statute is broader. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of certain challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s TPS designation, termination or extension determinations, substantially limiting the ability of affected individuals to challenge those decisions in court.
For roofing contractors, the key issue is employment authorization. Many TPS beneficiaries have worked lawfully in the United States for years. Some hold employment authorization documents or EADs, that have been automatically extended by federal notice. If a TPS designation ends or if an EAD extension expires, a worker who was previously authorized may lose work authorization. Contractors cannot knowingly continue to employ an unauthorized worker but they also cannot overreact in a way that creates discrimination exposure. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court addressed whether individuals stopped at or near the U.S.-Mexico
border have legally arrived in the United States for purposes of applying for asylum. The Court held that a person does not arrive in the United States until the person physically crosses the border. The decision supports the federal government’s ability to use metering or turnback practices at ports of entry when border conditions warrant, because individuals who remain physically in Mexico have not yet “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
A tighter asylum system and broader executive control over TPS may reduce the pool of workauthorized labor. Roofing contractors may see greater uncertainty among employees, subcontractor crews and labor brokers. Some workers may need updated documents. Others may be confused about whether they remain authorized to work. Project managers may face labor disruptions with little notice.
Contractors should take several practical steps now. First, conduct an internal I-9 audit. Confirm that Form I-9s are complete, properly stored and supported by acceptable documents at the time of hire. Employers should not demand specific documents. The employee chooses which acceptable documents to present from the federal Lists of Acceptable Documents. If the company uses E-Verify, confirm that it uses the system consistently and only where permitted or required.
Second, create a reverification calendar. Employers must reverify employees with temporary work authorization before the authorization expires. This is especially important for EADs tied to TPS, asylum or parole-based categories. Assign one responsible person to track expirations, automatic extensions and federal notices. Do not wait until a crew leaves for a project to discover that a key foreman or installer needs reverification.
Third, train supervisors not to make immigrationstatus assumptions. A supervisor should not remove someone from a job, ask for extra papers or make comments based on accent, language, ethnicity or perceived national origin. Immigration compliance belongs with HR, ownership or trained administrative personnel. Field supervisors should report documentation concerns through a defined process.
Fourth, review subcontractor agreements. Roofing contractors should require subcontractors and labor providers to comply with I-9, E-Verify where applicable, wage-and-hour, workers’ compensation and immigration laws. Contracts should include indemnity language, audit rights, flow-down obligations and a right to remove non-compliant personnel from the project. Prime contractors should also avoid controlling a subcontractor’s employees in a way that creates unintended joint-employer issues.
Fifth, plan for labor disruption. Immigration changes can affect manpower, production rates and project sequencing. Contractors should review schedule clauses, delay notice provisions, force majeure language, manpower commitments and liquidated damages exposure. A contractor that waits until labor disappears from the jobsite will have a much harder time preserving contractual rights.
Finally, communicate carefully. Contractors should not provide immigration legal advice to employees unless they are qualified to do so. However, they can direct employees to official government resources or independent immigration counsel. The best approach is neutral, consistent and documented compliance.
These Supreme Court rulings do not require roofing contractors to panic. They do require contractors to become more disciplined. The winning strategy is not speculation about federal policy. It is clean paperwork, consistent reverification, careful subcontractor management, supervisor training and early legal review when work authorization questions arise.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors should consult with legal counsel regarding the laws, contract requirements and safety obligations that apply to their specific projects and jurisdictions.
Trent Cotney is a Partner and Construction Team Leader at Adams & Reese, LLP and is also FRSA's General Counsel. You can reach him at 813-227-5501 or trent.cotney@arlaw.com.