Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee challenged as lawsuits move toward ruling

(NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, USA) A legal fight over a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas is moving closer to a court ruling after business groups, unions, health providers, schools, and faith groups sued President Trump over a September 19, 2025, presidential proclamation they say goes far beyond what immigration law allows. The proclamation took effect September 21, 2025, ordering employers filing new H-1B petitions to pay the fee, even though Congress already set out a detailed fee system in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and related statutes.

Where the cases are and why they matter now

The cases are both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the source material does not report any ruling or injunction so far. Still, the stakes are immediate because the lawsuits say federal agencies are already enforcing the new charge for employers trying to bring in workers on H-1B visas — a program widely used for skilled jobs in fields such as medicine, engineering, and education.

At the center of the dispute is a basic question of power: whether a president can create a fee of this size by proclamation, or whether only Congress can do that through legislation. The plaintiffs say Congress designed the H-1B fee framework on purpose, tying fees to government costs and program rules, and that the White House cannot replace that structure with what the suits describe as an extra, stand‑alone price tag for entry.

The lawsuits — who filed and when

Two separate suits challenge the proclamation from different perspectives:

• Global Nurse Force v. Trump
  • Filed: October 3, 2025
  • Plaintiffs include: labor unions; healthcare providers led by Global Nurse Force; schools including Global Village Academy Collaborative; and religious organizations such as the Society of the Divine Word and Fathers of St. Joseph.
  • Legal teams include: Democracy Forward, Justice Action Center, South Asian American Justice Collaborative, Kuck Baxter LLC, Joseph & Hall P.C., and IMMpact Litigation.
  • Claims: the proclamation is unconstitutional, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and undercuts the H-1B program’s purpose for filling hard‑to‑fill roles.
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. (Presidential Proclamation)
  • Filed: October 16, 2025
  • Plaintiff: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Focus: business impact — calls the fee a kind of “pay‑to‑play” system not tied to processing costs.
  • Notable statement: Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer, said the new charge makes the program “cost-prohibitive.” The Chamber argues Congress meant the H-1B system to support growth for U.S. employers that cannot find enough workers in the local labor market.

Core legal argument

Both suits share the same central claim: the proclamation steps into a role reserved for Congress.

• Plaintiffs’ view:
  • The INA gives the executive branch a role in administering visas but not the power to create a new, massive fee that changes who can realistically use the program.
  • Congress built the H-1B fee framework to be tied to government costs and program rules; a presidential proclamation cannot replace that statutory structure.
  • A sudden $100,000 fee changes hiring decisions overnight, especially harming smaller employers and nonprofits.

Procedural and practical complaints

The Global Nurse Force coalition emphasizes how rapidly the fee was imposed:

• They say the fee was instituted with only 36 hours’ notice, leaving employers and agencies scrambling.
• That short runway matters because the H-1B process is paperwork‑heavy and time‑sensitive, and employers often coordinate start dates with hospitals, school calendars, research schedules, and patient care needs.
• The suits argue a last-minute cost can derail accepted offers and already-set staffing plans.

The Chamber’s case highlights broader market effects:

• A large fee can push smaller companies out of the market for talent.
• While H-1B is often associated with big tech, startups and small firms also rely on it to compete.
• If a company cannot afford the fee, it may drop a candidate or move work elsewhere, even when the job is in the United States 🇺🇸 and the employer wants to grow here.

Administrative Procedure Act and enforcement

Both suits raise claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing:

• The proclamation and its rollout did not give adequate notice to affected groups.
• The proclamation conflicts with the statutory rules Congress created for visa fees.
• A fee untethered to actual processing costs clashes with how visa fees are normally justified and set.

The source material does not describe any public response from the Trump administration in these cases, and it does not list a court hearing date. However, it reports that USCIS, the State Department, and Customs and Border Protection are enforcing the fee on new petitions after September 21, 2025, which is why employers are watching the lawsuits closely.

Even if a company believes the fee is unlawful, it may still have to pay it to avoid losing a worker, missing a project deadline, or leaving a job unfilled.

How this fits into the broader legal framework

For readers separating politics from practice, it helps to know how H-1B visas fit into the legal structure:

• The INA sets broad rules for many visa categories, including worker visas, and Congress has repeatedly adjusted H-1B rules over time.
• Employers who file H-1B petitions generally deal with USCIS, and official program information is posted on the agency’s website: USCIS H-1B Specialty Occupations.
• The lawsuits argue that because Congress built this system through statutes, a presidential proclamation cannot rewrite it by imposing a new fee at this scale.

Human impact stressed in complaints

Although filed by organizations, the complaints emphasize real-world consequences:

• Hospitals and care providers warn staffing gaps can hit patients first, especially in underserved areas where recruiting is already difficult.
• Schools say they may lose teachers in specialized subjects.
• Religious organizations note missions often depend on skilled workers — including educators and health workers — and a sudden large fee can close off previously viable options.

Venue and legal posture

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the Northern District of California has become a key venue for fast-moving immigration fights because plaintiffs often argue that national immigration actions cause immediate harm to employers and communities in the region.

• Plaintiffs are asking the court to treat the fee not as a routine administrative adjustment, but as a major legal change that should be blocked because it conflicts with the INA and the limits it places on executive power.

Key dates and amounts (summary table)

Takeaway

• The legal fight centers on whether the president can impose a large, stand‑alone fee by proclamation or whether that power belongs to Congress under the INA.
• Immediate practical consequences are driving urgency: federal agencies are enforcing the fee, and employers may feel compelled to pay despite legal objections to avoid operational harm.
• The Northern District of California will be the focal point for litigation that could determine whether this kind of fee can stand or must be struck down as beyond executive authority.