(MASSACHUSETTS) A coalition of 20 states, including Michigan, asked a federal court in Massachusetts on December 12, 2025, to block the Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee on new H‑1B visa petitions, calling it an unlawful attempt to price employers out of a key pathway used to hire doctors, engineers, professors, and other specialty workers.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined the case alongside 19 other states in a lawsuit led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. The states argue the fee, created by President Trump’s September 19, 2025 proclamation and applied to new petitions filed after September 21, 2025, breaks federal law and the U.S. Constitution by going far beyond what Congress allowed agencies to charge.
Core legal claims
The lawsuit centers on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and statutory limits on immigration filing fees.
- The states contend the fee violates the APA, which sets the rules agencies must follow for major policy changes, including reasoned decision-making and required procedures.
- They also argue Congress limited immigration filing fees to the government’s real cost to process an application—typically $960–$7,595, according to the complaint—not $100,000.
- The states ask a judge to declare the fee unlawful and to issue an injunction stopping enforcement while the case proceeds.
Targeted agencies and enforcement reach
The filing targets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and agencies involved in the H‑1B pipeline, including:
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — handles the main petition process
- U.S. Department of State — consular visa processing
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — enforcement at ports of entry
While the court had not ruled as of December 16, 2025, employers and foreign workers are watching closely because the policy applies to “new” H‑1B filings and arrives amid staffing gaps states say are already hard to manage.
Why states say this matters locally
The coalition frames the fee as both illegal and harmful to everyday services in their states.
- Dana Nessel: “The H‑1B visa program is meant to attract and retain highly skilled workers, and slapping a massive fee on the very people who help educate our students, keep our auto industry competitive, and provide critical medical care is not only unlawful but harmful to Michiganders.”
- Rob Bonta (leading the multistate case): “President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H‑1B visa fee creates unnecessary barriers… undermining the very purpose of the H‑1B visa.”
The states say the fee turns the program into a “pay-to-play” system that could block employers who cannot afford the one-time, large upfront charge, even when they need a worker to:
- Keep a clinic open
- Staff a lab
- Teach a course
- Fill a role in public service
Concerns about exemptions and discretion
The complaint also raises alarm about who might be spared from the fee.
- The policy reportedly gives DHS Secretary Kristi Noem broad discretion to grant exemptions.
- The states warn this discretion could lead to selective outcomes and create planning uncertainty for employers with fixed budgets.
- For hospitals, universities, and public agencies, the difference between normal filing costs and a $100,000 add‑on could be determinative for whether a position is filled.
Administration defense and policy rationale
The Trump administration defends the fee as a measure to protect American workers.
- White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the fee is a lawful step to prioritize American workers, cut “spamming” of the system, and prevent wage suppression.
- Supporters of tougher rules argue some employers rely too heavily on H‑1B hiring and the program needs tighter controls.
The lawsuit, however, focuses on whether the administration can impose a fee of this magnitude without Congressional authorization.
How the H‑1B program works (context)
The H‑1B program allows employers in the United States 🇺🇸 to hire foreign workers in “specialty occupations”, jobs that usually require at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. In practice, it is widely used in:
- Health care
- Education
- Research
- Industries such as automotive and technology
The states argue the fee is not just a federal policy fight in Washington but a direct threat to patient care, classrooms, and state-run services when local employers cannot find enough qualified workers.
Practical implications for employers
For employers trying to determine what counts as a “new” H‑1B filing, the key government touchpoint remains USCIS, which handles the primary petition. Employers generally submit Form I-129, the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, along with supporting documents and required statutory fees.
🔔 Stay updated on court decisions and agency guidance. Do not finalize large-scale H-1B offers or start new petitions until the injunction status is clearer to prevent costly missteps.
The lawsuit claims the administration’s $100,000 add‑on exceeds what Congress intended when it allowed agencies to charge for processing.
Related and parallel litigation
The multistate complaint adds to several other legal challenges:
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and research universities sued earlier, arguing the proclamation violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
- A lawsuit filed October 3, 2025 in the Northern District of California by healthcare organizations, labor unions, academics, religious groups, and workers claims the change will hurt underserved communities.
- The Massachusetts filing adds the weight of state governments arguing they are responsible for maintaining public services that will feel the impact first.
Coalition details and legal theory
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said on December 15, 2025, that the coalition totals 20 states. Several named states include:
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
Their legal theory: the administration cannot use a proclamation and agency enforcement to create a fee that, in practice, functions as a barrier rather than a processing charge.
Timing and immediate effects
Timing matters for employers and prospective employees:
- The proclamation was issued September 19, 2025 and made effective for applications filed after September 21, 2025.
- That left little runway for organizations already deep into recruitment cycles.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, lawsuits like this can quickly shape real hiring decisions. Even the risk of fee enforcement can freeze offers, delay start dates, or push employers toward alternative staffing options while they wait for a court decision.
No court had weighed in on the merits as of December 16, 2025, and the fee remained a live issue for employers deciding whether to file, delay, or shift plans.
What the states are asking the court to do
The states request that the court:
- Declare the $100,000 fee unlawful under the APA and relevant immigration statutes.
- Issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the fee while litigation proceeds.
Their case frames the choice plainly: either the H‑1B pipeline stays tied to processing costs set by Congress, or it becomes a tool that can be priced far beyond those costs — potentially threatening hospitals, schools, and other public services that depend on specialized workers.
On December 12, 2025, 20 states sued to block the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H‑1B petitions, arguing it exceeds Congress‑authorized processing costs and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The states seek a judicial declaration the fee is unlawful and an injunction to halt enforcement. Effective for filings after September 21, 2025, the fee threatens hiring in health care, education, research and industry and raises concerns about discretionary exemptions and selective enforcement.
