Judge Rejects Challenge to Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) A federal judge on Tuesday upheld President Trump‘s new $100,000 fee for certain new H-1B visa petitions, rejecting a lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that warned the price tag would choke off skilled hiring and strain universities and employers across the United States 🇺🇸. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, sitting in Washington, D.C., ruled on December 23, 2025 that the administration acted within wide presidential authority over immigration when it set the fee by proclamation earlier this fall.

The ruling and its legal basis

Howell’s decision is an early courtroom test of one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive moves on work visas since returning to office: a September 2025 presidential proclamation that added the six‑figure charge on new applications in the H-1B program, which allows employers to hire foreign workers in specialty jobs.

In her ruling, Howell dismissed arguments that the fee exceeded power Congress granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. She sided with the government’s view that the executive branch can set conditions on entry when it says it is protecting U.S. workers.

The Chamber, joined in parts of the case by the Association of American Universities, had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the fee and declare it invalid. The group’s complaint, filed October 16, 2025, called the policy “plainly unlawful” and said no statute authorizes the White House to impose such a steep payment as a gatekeeper for visas.

“Plainly unlawful,” the Chamber wrote in its complaint, arguing that prior to the proclamation total H-1B filing fees rarely topped $5,000 per petition, not counting attorney costs — a dramatic comparison to the new six‑figure charge.

Administration’s justification

In court papers, the Trump administration framed the shift as both a labor policy and an anti-fraud measure. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the new charge was meant to deter “spamming” of the system with entry-level hires and to push employers to reserve H-1B slots for top-end recruits, including “great engineers” and “impressively detailed executives.”

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said the policy gives “certainty to employers who need to bring the best talent from overseas” while also responding to concerns that some employers use the program to hold down wages.

Immediate effects and who’s most affected

Howell did not pause implementation, and the judge’s order did not suspend how the fee will be rolled out. That matters for employers with winter and spring hiring cycles, because many H-1B filings cluster around the federal fiscal year and start dates tied to academic calendars, contracts, and training programs.

• Employers that budgeted for several thousand dollars per candidate now face a bill that can be twenty times higher — and that is before legal fees or other compliance costs.
• Universities, research labs, hospitals, and tech firms are among the most exposed sectors.
• The fee’s burden is felt unevenly: small firms, rural clinics, and teaching hospitals may be hit harder than large multinationals.

Sectors likely to feel the impact first

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, fields that use H-1B workers in larger volumes are most vulnerable:

• Software and technology
• Consulting
• Higher education (researchers, postdocs, faculty)

Universities warned in the lawsuit that a six‑figure fee would force departments to cut positions or shift money away from grants and student support.

Effects on workers and hiring decisions

For workers, the cost is usually paid by the sponsoring employer, but the ripple effects can still be personal:

• Recruiters may decline to extend offers.
• Small firms may abandon growth plans.
• Foreign graduates might choose competing countries if U.S. sponsorship becomes unaffordable.

In interviews about past visa changes, many H-1B candidates described the stress of planning a life around rules that can change quickly; the new fee, even if aimed at employers, can make that uncertainty sharper.

Additional legal challenges and geographic differences

The Chamber’s challenge is not the only one on file. On December 19, 2025, a rural North Carolina medical practice and other employers asked a court to block enforcement, saying they would suffer “irreparable harm” from what they called a “massive” fee hike.

That case highlights how the policy may land differently outside big coastal markets: rural clinics and small hospitals often depend on international physicians and other specialists, and a sudden jump in visa costs can hit them harder than multinational companies with larger budgets.

Broader policy implications

The administration has argued that a higher fee could:

• Cut down on low‑quality filings
• Reduce strain on processing

Critics respond that USCIS already has tools to police misuse, and that lawful employers and workers will bear the burden.

Legal analysts say Howell’s reading of executive power will be watched closely by companies deciding whether to file in early 2026 or wait for appeals. Even after Howell’s ruling, challengers can appeal, and other judges could reach different outcomes depending on the claims and evidence in separate cases.

The decision gives the White House an early legal win and may encourage officials to keep using presidential proclamations to rewrite the economics of employment‑based immigration.

What employers should do now

For employers trying to plan, the government’s baseline description of the program remains on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services H-1B page at USCIS.

Key practical takeaways:

1. Treat the proclamation as in force while appeals proceed.
2. Reassess hiring budgets and payroll plans to account for the $100,000 fee per affected petition.
3. Evaluate whether to:
   • File now (accepting the fee risk), or
   • Delay filings pending potential appellate rulings.
4. Consider alternative hiring and sponsorship strategies (other visa categories, remote hiring, or out‑of‑country recruitment).

Comparative fee context

Howell’s opinion makes clear that, for now, the new $100,000 fee stands, even as businesses, universities, and medical providers weigh whether hiring a worker through H-1B is still possible under a cost the Chamber says Congress never approved.

Legal analysts said Howell’s reading of executive power will be watched closely by companies deciding whether to file in early 2026 or wait for appeals. The Chamber did not immediately say if it would ask the D.C. Circuit to reverse her. For now, employers must treat the proclamation as in force, with payroll plans and offers built around a fee that dwarfs every prior H-1B charge.