(WASHINGTON, D.C.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit on October 16, 2025, asking a federal court to block the Trump administration’s new H-1B fee on visa petitions. The group says the charge—announced by executive order in September—violates federal law and would force many employers to abandon hiring plans for skilled foreign workers. Business leaders argue the rule would hit startups and small and midsize firms the hardest, while also hurting schools, hospitals, and nonprofits that rely on specialized talent.
Chamber officials say the H-1B fee is not based on the government’s actual processing costs, as the Immigration and Nationality Act requires. Instead, they argue, the administration set an arbitrary amount that is 10 to 20 times higher than current charges. According to court filings and public statements, the Chamber believes the policy will push jobs and innovation overseas by making it too expensive for U.S. employers to sponsor needed workers.
The lawsuit arrives less than a month after President Trump’s executive order introduced the fee. While the filing focuses on legal arguments, it also paints a portrait of business harm. Employers across technology, manufacturing, healthcare, and higher education warn they will be unable to budget for sponsorship at a $100,000 price point per petition.
One employer coalition told the court the fee could:
– reduce research projects,
– delay hospital staffing, and
– stall classroom instruction when qualified U.S. candidates are not available.
Legal Claims and Business Impact
In its complaint, the Chamber of Commerce alleges the administration exceeded its authority by imposing a fee unrelated to actual government costs. The Chamber points to the Immigration and Nationality Act’s fee framework and argues the new charge is “arbitrary and capricious.” The group asked the court to stop the rule before employers face upcoming filing deadlines, warning of immediate harm in the next recruitment cycle.
The Chamber’s lawsuit is backed by a broader coalition, including:
– the American Association of University Professors,
– U.A.W. International,
– Global Nurse Force, and
– other groups spanning education, labor, and healthcare.
Their message: the H-1B program does not only serve tech giants; it also supports universities filling specialized teaching roles, hospitals meeting patient-care needs, and nonprofits running research and community programs.
Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President of the Chamber, said the organization supports many of President Trump’s economic priorities but believes this policy will weaken U.S. competitiveness. He warned that top candidates may choose countries with more predictable and affordable visa systems, leaving American employers short of essential skills.
“This fee would drive talent elsewhere and limit access to global skills needed for growth,” Bradley said, according to public statements cited in the complaint.
The Chamber also sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick, calling the policy “arbitrary and capricious,” asking for its rescission, and seeking clarity on how the fee would be applied if it remains. Business groups say they have not seen a cost analysis that justifies the amount or explains how the Department of the Treasury or Department of Homeland Security would collect and allocate the funds.
Employers note that H-1B petitions already carry several fees, and multiplying that cost by 10 to 20 times would reshape hiring plans. Specific concerns include:
– Startups: a single H-1B hire could consume months of runway.
– Mid-market companies: priced out of hiring niche specialists (e.g., chip design engineers, healthcare data analysts).
– Universities and hospitals: research projects and patient care could be delayed or canceled.
Political and Historical Context
The Chamber has a long record of challenging executive actions that limit business access to immigration programs, with at least 25 lawsuits filed since 2017 targeting rules it views as harmful to growth. This case fits that pattern: a sweeping policy change issued quickly by the White House, followed by immediate legal pushback from industry groups arguing the action conflicts with statute.
As of October 16, 2025, the case is pending and the $100,000 H-1B fee remains in place on paper. Employers considering new sponsorship are watching closely for court orders that could pause or narrow the policy. Human resources teams and university departments have slowed hiring timelines while they wait for clarity.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, uncertainty alone can deter candidates from accepting offers, especially when competing countries advertise stable visa costs.
What the H-1B Program Covers (Context)
The H-1B program covers “specialty occupations” that require at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. While this article does not discuss filing mechanics, readers can review the U.S. government’s overview of H-1B eligibility and process on the official USCIS page: H-1B Specialty Occupations. That page provides baseline information that may help employers and workers follow future updates tied to this H-1B fee dispute.
Concrete Examples of Potential Harm
Business advocates emphasize impacts beyond large tech firms. Examples include:
– A rural hospital seeking a specialist may have to delay services if it cannot afford sponsorship at $100,000 per petition.
– A public university department planning to hire a research professor could scrap a grant-funded project because visa costs eclipse the budget.
– A mid-sized manufacturer aiming to bring in a hard-to-find robotics engineer may abandon its expansion plan, costing local jobs.
The Chamber frames these as immediate, practical harms—not abstract concerns. The coalition’s filings argue the fee would cut off access to talent that supports American workers and communities, stressing that fairly priced immigration programs help fill gaps so companies can grow in the United States rather than move projects abroad.
Administration’s Justification and Chamber’s Response
Supporters of the fee within the administration argue higher costs can push employers to recruit more U.S. workers. The Chamber responds that the issue is not a binary choice between U.S. and foreign labor, but a need to fill highly specialized roles when the local labor pool is insufficient.
The Chamber’s court papers contend that:
– Pricing employers out of petitions will not create qualified candidates overnight.
– Instead, it will slow projects and encourage offshoring.
Possible Outcomes and Employer Responses
The outcome will hinge on the court’s reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether the executive order conflicts with the statute’s fee requirements.
Potential scenarios:
1. If the court finds the fee is not tied to actual processing costs, it could block or set aside the policy.
2. If the court upholds the fee, employers would face a rapid shift in budget planning for upcoming hiring cycles.
In response, companies are preparing contingency plans:
– Exploring contract work.
– Delaying start dates while tracking the lawsuit.
– Universities reviewing grant timelines and staffing for the next academic term.
– Hospitals mapping patient coverage scenarios if specialist roles remain open longer.
The Chamber’s case also signals more litigation may follow if the administration continues to adjust immigration costs by executive order. Business groups have asked the court to move quickly, warning that each lost filing window due to uncertainty can change hiring for an entire year.
Important: With the H-1B fee set at such a high level, business groups say the effect would be immediate and wide.
Readers who want to follow official updates on visa policies can consult the USCIS page above. The Chamber of Commerce says it will keep pressing until the fee is stopped or replaced with a lawful, cost-based structure. As the lawsuit proceeds, employers, workers, and students who rely on U.S. immigration programs will be watching the court docket closely.
This Article in a Nutshell
On October 16, 2025, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued to block a $100,000 H-1B fee established by presidential executive order. The Chamber alleges the fee violates the Immigration and Nationality Act because it is not tied to actual processing costs and is disproportionately high—reported as 10 to 20 times existing charges. Business groups, universities, hospitals and unions argue the fee would force employers to delay hiring, cut research projects, and impair patient care. The lawsuit is pending; employers are preparing contingency plans and watching for court rulings that could pause or overturn the policy.
