(MASSACHUSETTS) A coalition of 19 to 20 U.S. states sued the Trump administration on December 12, 2025, asking a federal court in Massachusetts to block a new $100,000 fee on many new H‑1B visa petitions. The states say the price jump is unlawful and will hurt schools, hospitals, research labs, and employers already struggling to hire.
Who brought the lawsuit and what they challenge
The states are led by attorneys general including Oregon’s Dan Rayfield, Maryland’s Anthony G. Brown, Delaware’s Kathleen Jennings, and California’s Rob Bonta. They targeted President Trump’s September 19, 2025 proclamation, which ties approvals for certain H‑1B petitions to a six‑figure payment.
- The complaint says the proclamation was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for applications filed after September 21, 2025.
- The states argue this amounts to a major rewrite of the H‑1B program without Congress’s approval.
Legal basis of the complaint
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that the fee violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The APA generally requires agencies to explain and legally support major changes, and often to use a public notice-and-comment process before new rules take effect.
- The states say DHS and USCIS treated the proclamation like a switch they could flip, even though it reshapes who can afford to use the H‑1B program and which employers can recruit professional workers from abroad.
They also contend the administration exceeded its authority on fee setting:
- Congress has established the framework for H‑1B filing fees and related charges.
- The states claim the executive branch cannot impose a $100,000 payment simply by proclamation.
- They argue fees are supposed to relate to the cost of providing a service, not act as a barrier aimed at reducing applications.
The magnitude of the change
In court papers, the states described the new price as a “potential 10,000% increase” compared with earlier costs.
- They said prior costs ranged from $960 to $7,595.
- The states argue the $100,000 charge far exceeds government processing costs and transforms the program into a pay-to-play system.
Consequences the states predict:
- Fewer petitions overall.
- A shift toward employers with the deepest pockets.
- Public universities, school districts, and nonprofit hospitals disadvantaged.
Quick comparison
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| New fee | $100,000 |
| Prior fee range (states’ claim) | $960 to $7,595 |
| Annual statutory cap | 65,000 visas |
| Exemption category cap | 20,000 (for U.S. master’s degree or higher) |
Sectors and public impacts highlighted
The states pointed to areas with already sharp staffing gaps:
- Healthcare (physicians, nurses)
- Education (teachers)
- Research (laboratory researchers)
- Technology
California emphasized impacts on hiring teachers, physicians, nurses, and researchers.
For state agencies and public institutions, paying $100,000 on top of legal and filing costs can:
- Mean shelving a hire,
- Delay critical projects,
- Push departments to rely on costly temporary staffing.
The states further argue public services suffer when there are shortages—not enough nurses in hospital wards, not enough teachers in classrooms, not enough specialists supporting state systems.
Caps vs. fee — why the cap doesn’t solve the problem
The proclamation does not change the statutory caps, which remain:
- 65,000 visas per year, plus
- 20,000 for workers with U.S. master’s degrees or higher.
But the states argue the cap does not address the harm of the fee. Even with static caps, the huge price increase alters who can compete for limited slots. Demand already often exceeded supply; a massive new cost will likely shut many employers out.
Discretion and the role of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem
Under the proclamation:
- H‑1B approvals are restricted unless the $100,000 payment is made.
- The DHS Secretary (Kristi Noem) has discretion to grant exemptions.
The states say this invites uneven treatment, because exemptions could be granted to favored employers while others face the full cost. They argue this open-ended discretion is another reason the change should have gone through formal rulemaking with clear standards and public input.
Supporters’ position and government rationale
Supporters of the fee say it will protect U.S. workers and reduce use of foreign labor.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the fee aims to “stop bringing in people to take our jobs.”
The states respond that the H‑1B program is intended to address labor gaps in specialty jobs, and that the new charge punishes employers even when they cannot fill roles locally.
Other legal challenges and current status
The states’ case is at least the third legal challenge to the proclamation. Earlier suits were filed by:
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (with research universities), and
- Labor unions.
All argue the fee conflicts with laws governing the H‑1B program.
- As of December 12, 2025, no rulings were reported in the state-led case.
- USCIS has confirmed the policy remains in effect.
Practical impacts on employers, institutions, and workers
The dispute affects real-world timelines and operations:
- Companies and universities plan hires months ahead, tie start dates to grants or semesters, and build teams around hard-to-find skills.
- A six‑figure government charge, paid up front, can force last-minute changes:
- A lab may not bring in a researcher.
- A hospital may keep a vacancy open longer.
- A school district may drop a candidate and restart its search.
The states emphasize the fee’s effects go beyond corporate balance sheets and spill into public services and state budgets.
What the legal fight will likely hinge on
Analysts say the case will focus on two main questions:
- Can DHS and USCIS defend the fee as a lawful charge tied to the cost of services?
- Did the proclamation sidestep the procedural steps the Administrative Procedure Act requires when an agency makes a sweeping change that reshapes access to a major visa program?
For people tracking official guidance on the H‑1B process, USCIS H-1B overview.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the outcome will likely depend on whether courts find the fee is legally justified and whether normal rulemaking procedures were required.
A coalition of 19–20 states sued to block a $100,000 fee imposed by a presidential proclamation that conditions many H‑1B approvals on a six‑figure payment. The states contend DHS and USCIS sidestepped the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded Congress’s fee-setting authority. Prior fees ranged $960–$7,595; plaintiffs call the increase disproportionate and harmful to public institutions, predicting fewer petitions and advantages for wealthy employers while the policy remains in effect pending litigation.
