Texas indictment of bakery owners puts employers on notice of increased scrutiny under Trump administration
The indictment this week of the owners of a Texas bakery on harboring charges is proof that the Trump administration has made immigration enforcement a top priority, targeting both unauthorized foreign nationals and the employers who hire them.
This increased scrutiny means businesses face heightened risks—particularly when their actions could be construed as “harboring” individuals who are in the United States unlawfully.
According to a release from the Southern District of Texas U.S. Attorney's Office, the owners of Abby’s Bakery and Dulce’s Café in Los Fresnos, TX, were indicted on federal charges of harboring foreign nationals who worked for them by providing living quarters in the restaurant.
Under United States immigration law, it is a criminal offense to knowingly—or with reckless disregard—conceal, harbor or shield from detection any foreign national who has entered or remained in the country in violation of the law. Employers who engage in or facilitate such actions may face liability, even if they are not directly responsible for hiring unauthorized workers.
What Constitutes ‘Harboring’?
Although harboring is a federal criminal offense, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not define the term. Instead, courts have shaped its meaning over time.
Generally, an employer may be found guilty of harboring if all three of these elements of the crime are proven:
- A foreign national has entered or remained in the United States unlawfully.
- The employer concealed, sheltered, or otherwise harbored the individual.
- The employer knew—or recklessly disregarded—that the individual’s presence was unlawful.
In some jurisdictions, courts have held that prosecutors must prove a fourth element of the offense:
- The employer’s actions substantially facilitated the foreign national’s ability to remain in the country illegally.
While interpretations vary, the courts consistently require affirmative conduct that actively obstructs immigration enforcement. Simply employing an unauthorized foreign national is not enough to constitute harboring. However, providing shelter, transportation, falsified documentation or warnings about enforcement actions may cross the legal line.
Employer Conduct That Has Led to Harboring Convictions
Case law offers clear warnings about the types of actions that have resulted in harboring convictions. Courts have ruled against employers who provided unauthorized foreign nationals with housing or transportation beyond standard work arrangements. Similarly, companies that failed to follow proper employment documentation procedures—or worse, knowingly accepted falsified paperwork—have been held liable.
Interfering with immigration enforcement is also a serious risk. Employers have faced convictions for warning employees about upcoming investigations, encouraging them to flee, or obstructing government agents. In one case, a business owner was convicted of harboring after telling unauthorized foreign nationals to pose as customers during an immigration raid. In another, an employer physically blocked investigators from conducting an enforcement action.
Avoiding Legal Risk
To reduce the risk of criminal liability, employers should take proactive steps, including:
- Ensure compliance with I-9 employment eligibility verification and documentation requirements.
- Avoid actions that could be viewed as harboring, such as providing housing or transportation outside of normal work arrangements.
- Never interfere with immigration enforcement actions or alerting employees to pending investigations.
Other Related Offenses
Harboring is just one of several offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). The law also prohibits:
- Smuggling unauthorized foreign nationals into the country
- Transporting them within the United States
- Concealing their presence
- Encouraging unlawful entry
Even indirect assistance—such as aiding or abetting any of these offenses—can lead to criminal liability.
[View source.]
