Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee in San Francisco

(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) A broad coalition of unions, employers, and civil society groups filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco seeking to block President Trump’s order imposing a one-time $100,000 H-1B fee on visa applications. The complaint, lodged on October 3, 2025, asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to stop the policy, which took effect on September 21, 2025, after a September 19, 2025 proclamation. At the center of the case is “Phoenix Doe,” an Indian postdoctoral researcher in Northern California whose halted H-1B petition is presented as a clear example of real-world harm.

Who’s suing and why

Plaintiffs argue the proclamation reaches far beyond what immigration law allows a president to do, calling it an illegal attempt to impose a fee that Congress never approved. They also say the administration skipped normal rule-making steps and did not weigh the social and economic fallout of the change.

The coalition includes:
– United Auto Workers (UAW)
– American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
– Justice Action Center
– Democracy Forward Foundation
– Global Nurse Force
– Several religious organizations
– Affected workers and employers

They seek an injunction to pause the fee while the case proceeds, arguing the harm to workers and institutions is immediate and severe.

Policy impact and plaintiff arguments

Plaintiffs say the proclamation will reshape how employers think about hiring and research because the H-1B fee is far above typical sponsorship costs, which usually range between $2,000 and $5,000.

Key plaintiff concerns:
– The sudden $100,000 increase could derail projects at universities, hospitals, and nonprofits.
– Companies may move work overseas to avoid the cost.
– The administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements.
– The Departments of Homeland Security and State did not perform adequate analysis of the policy’s wide economic impact.

“Attaching a $100,000 price tag to an H-1B petition is not a simple administrative tweak, but a broad financial mandate that only lawmakers can enact,” the complaint contends.

Government rationale and the “national interest” exemption

The government says the fee aims to:
– Prevent abuse of the H-1B program
– Protect U.S. workers by discouraging what it views as low-priority uses of the visa

The proclamation includes a “national interest” exemption, which the administration says will allow truly high-value cases to move forward.

Plaintiffs counter:
– The exemption is vague and invites uneven decisions.
– Employers and foreign workers are left uncertain and in limbo.
– The exemption may be applied inconsistently, producing delays and denials even for critical cases.

Human impact: the case of “Phoenix Doe”

To show the stakes, the lawsuit highlights the story of “Phoenix Doe,” an Indian postdoctoral researcher in Northern California who studies genetic and epigenetic drivers of vision loss tied to aging, diabetes, and rare disorders.

• She was on a cap-exempt H-1B track—a path often used by universities and nonprofit research groups.
• When the H-1B fee took effect, her petition was paused because the lab cannot absorb a $100,000 charge.
• The filing says she faces a forced departure within four months if the court does not provide relief.
• Her exit would disrupt active studies and slow progress toward new treatments and diagnostic tools for blinding conditions.

The complaint frames her situation as emblematic of broader risk: losing foreign experts could stall important research and reduce the likelihood of breakthroughs that help patients.

Broader effects on health care, education, and startups

Plaintiffs emphasize the fee’s ripple effects beyond labs:
– Rural clinics that depend on international nurses
– Public schools needing specialized instructors
– Startups requiring niche technical skills

Potential consequences:
– Employers may cancel projects or delay hiring
– Companies might offshore work to avoid costs
– Even employers who can pay face planning uncertainty, contract risk, and harder-to-meet deadlines

Legal claims and statutes at issue

The legal fight centers on whether the White House can create a massive financial barrier without going through Congress.

Primary legal claims:
– Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, plaintiffs say, do not permit the president to levy new fees or taxes on visa applicants.
– The suit alleges the fee functions as an unlawful tax or legislative imposition that only Congress can enact.
– Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act for adopting sweeping changes without proper notice-and-comment and without a careful analysis of economic consequences.

Timeline (as stated in the complaint)

What’s at stake in court

The court will decide whether the president can impose a fee of this size as part of immigration authority or whether the order amounts to an unlawful tax. Possible outcomes:
1. Injunction granted — the H-1B fee is paused while the case proceeds.
2. Injunction denied — the fee remains in place, forcing employers to pay, delay recruiting, or move work abroad.

The ruling will also signal how far the executive branch can reshape immigration costs without congressional approval.

Practical guidance for employers and applicants

Employers and foreign nationals should:
– Monitor court filings closely for rapid changes.
– Prepare contingency plans, such as:
1. Alternate start dates
2. Remote work arrangements abroad
3. Exploring different visa categories
– Review official background on the H-1B program at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services page: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations

Political and policy implications

Policy observers note this case will test the balance of power between the White House and Congress on immigration fees.

• A win for plaintiffs could force the administration to withdraw or narrow the fee, and might spur congressional action on broader reforms.
• A win for the administration could encourage future presidents to use similar tools to influence who can come to the United States—and at what price.

The case raises broader questions about the U.S. role as a magnet for global talent. For decades, the H-1B route has helped bring specialized workers to universities, hospitals, and companies. Plaintiffs argue that a $100,000 charge will drive away promising candidates, push collaborations elsewhere, and weaken U.S. competitiveness in research and innovation.

Human and institutional consequences

The filing stresses the personal toll:
– Researchers may have to leave mid-project after years of building a life and career.
– Nurses and specialists could lose job offers or be unable to start.
– Families face housing and schooling disruptions.
– Employers must choose to pause, pay, or pivot, each option with significant costs.

The plaintiffs ask the judge to weigh these economic harms, the risk of losing top talent, and the public interest in strong research and patient care.

Bottom line

Legally, the question may sound technical—lawful fee or unlawful tax—but in practice, the court’s decision will determine whether early-career scientists, nurses, and specialized workers remain in the U.S. or are priced out. The outcome will shape decisions in boardrooms and lab meetings across the country and signal how immigration policy can be used to shape the workforce.

For now, Phoenix Doe and many like her await a ruling that could be the difference between continuing vital research in the U.S. or packing up and leaving.