AI can already read resumes, score game-like tests, and analyze video interviews. But in the United States, the real question is no longer simply, “Is hiring AI legal?” As of March 26, 2026, the answer depends heavily on where the job is located. Some rules are narrow: Maryland bars employers from using facial-recognition services to create a facial template during an interview unless the applicant signs a waiver. Others are much broader, creating a state-by-state patchwork that pushes employers to think about fairness, transparency, and human oversight. (mgaleg.maryland.gov)

Illinois was an early mover. Its Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act requires employers to tell applicants when AI will analyze recorded interviews, explain in general how the system works, get consent, and delete videos within 30 days if the applicant asks. On January 1, 2026, Illinois went further: the state’s Human Rights Act began explicitly banning employers from using AI in discriminatory ways in employment decisions, including recruitment and hiring, and it also requires notice when AI is used. (ilga.gov)

New York City is not a state, but its Local Law 144 has strongly influenced the national debate. Employers using an automated employment decision tool for hiring or promotion in the city must complete a bias audit within one year before use, make audit information public, and give candidates notice 10 business days in advance. Yet a December 2, 2025 audit by the New York State Comptroller found real enforcement problems, showing that passing a law is only the beginning. (nyc.gov)

Colorado is now the boldest state example. Its Anti-Discrimination in AI Law took effect on February 1, 2026 and treats many employment systems as “high-risk.” Developers and deployers must use reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, while deployers are expected to run risk-management programs, complete impact assessments, notify people when AI is a substantial factor in an important decision, allow correction of wrong data, and offer an appeal with human review when technically feasible. California has taken a different route: regulations effective October 1, 2025 clarify that anti-discrimination law applies to automated decision systems, including tools that screen resumes, target job ads, or analyze facial expression, word choice, or voice in online interviews. Taken together, these rules suggest a clear trend: AI may help companies hire faster, but lawmakers increasingly want humans to stay responsible for the final fairness of the process. (coag.gov)