Monthly Archives: July 2025

July 23, 2025

Significant Reductions in Nonimmigrant Visa Validity for Dozens of Countries

Chris Thomas

By Chris Thomas

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently revised its visa reciprocity schedules for numerous countries, significantly reducing the duration of nonimmigrant visa validity to three months and a single entry in many cases. These changes affect a broad range of visa categories, including B (visitor), F (student), H (temporary worker), J (exchange visitor), M (vocational student), and O (extraordinary ability) visas.

The updated reciprocity terms apply to visas issued on or after early July 2025. Visas issued before these changes remain valid under their original terms. For example, a July 8, 2025, notice on the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria website confirms that visas issued prior to that date are not affected. Read more >>

July 1, 2025

The Supreme Court “Clarifies” ADA Title I Protections for Retired Workers

Patrick Bernal

By Patrick Bernal and Joseph Robertson

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (ADA), which generally prohibits disability discrimination against employees. In sum, the Court held that the ADA’s antidiscrimination protections do not extend to retired workers who no longer hold or desire a job at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Joseph Robertson

Specifically, the City of Sanford reduced health insurance benefits for its disabled retirees. At that time, the City employed Karyn Stanley as a firefighter, and Ms. Stanley was not disabled. Two years into her retirement, Ms. Stanley filed an ADA employment-discrimination claim against the City. But Ms. Stanley did not specify when she became disabled, so lower courts and the Supreme Court denied Ms. Stanley’s ADA claim, finding that she was not a “qualified individual,” under the meaning of the ADA, and thus not entitled to receive ADA protections. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that a “qualified individual” must be a current or prospective employee only. Read more >>