(MASSACHUSETTS) A coalition of 20 states filed a federal lawsuit on December 12, 2025, asking a judge in Massachusetts to block President Donald Trump’s new $100K fee on certain H-1B work visa petitions. The states call the charge unlawful and say it will hit public universities, hospitals, and state agencies that depend on foreign-born professionals.

Case and parties

• The case, State of California, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 1:25-cv-13829, was filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.
• It is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, with Washington state joining under Attorney General Nick Brown.
• Defendants named in the complaint include the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice.
• The complaint emphasizes DHS because the policy is enforced under Secretary Kristi Noem, whom the states say has broad discretion to decide when the fee applies.

Policy at issue: proclamation and fee mechanics

• The lawsuit targets a policy issued through a Presidential Proclamation dated September 19, 2025, applying to covered H-1B petitions filed after September 20, 2025.
• Under the proclamation, certain new petitions that require consular notification can trigger a $100,000 fee per employee, unless an exemption applies (for example, a national interest exception or other carve-outs described in the policy).
• The states contend the fee is a dramatic break from past practice—previous employer fees generally ranged between $960 to $7,595 in combined regulatory and statutory fees, according to the complaint.
• By contrast, the new fee is $100,000 per covered worker, which the states say has no clear tie to the government’s actual costs for processing or oversight.

Legal claims — Administrative procedure and constitutional arguments

• The core procedural claim is that DHS and other agencies effectively imposed a new fee system without the notice-and-comment rulemaking that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) usually requires for major, rule-like changes.
  • Under the APA, major policy changes that function like rules generally require a public comment period so stakeholders can review and respond before changes take effect.
  • The states say that did not happen and that the government also failed to weigh predictable effects on public services, nonprofit employers, and government agencies that recruit highly trained staff from abroad.
• Constitutional claims:
  • The complaint alleges the proclamation upsets the separation of powers and creates a structure that invites uneven or selective enforcement.
  • Because DHS has discretion to determine applicability and exemptions, the states argue the policy invites selective use—one employer could be charged $100,000 per petition while another is spared, without a clear, consistent public standard.

Quantified impacts and operational concerns (Washington example)

• Washington’s filing provides concrete numbers on potential state impacts:
  • Nearly 500 H-1B visa holders work across 30+ state agencies, public universities, and colleges.
  • Those workers include tech roles, physicians, researchers, teachers, and nurses—fields the states say are already strained.
• The complaint warns that a $100,000 charge per covered petition can force:
  • Hiring freezes,
  • Delays to research projects,
  • Dropped candidates after months of recruiting,
  • Budget crises for labs, hospitals, and IT units.
• The states argue they cannot easily shift that expense onto students, patients, or taxpayers without cutting other services.

Who are the plaintiff states?

• Plaintiffs: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

H-1B basics and processing nuance

• The H-1B program is designed for “specialty occupations”—jobs that typically require at least a bachelor’s degree in a specific field.
• Employers file petitions for workers, and when a case needs consular processing, the person often completes visa steps at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad before entering the United States ?? to start or resume work.
• Basic program information is posted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the official government page for H-1B Specialty Occupations.
• Employers generally file using Form I-129, which USCIS publishes at Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.

Complaint’s criticism of the fee’s justification

• The states say the administration used a proclamation rather than ordinary rulemaking to impose what functions as a new fee system.
• They assert that past DHS fees were tied to actual agency costs, while the $100,000 figure here is not shown to be cost-based.
• The challenge claims that without a cost-based justification and without required process, the fee is vulnerable to an arbitrary-and-capricious review under the APA.

Prior litigation and the broader legal landscape

• This filing is the third reported court attack on the policy:
  1. A lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined by research universities.
  2. Another suit that included labor unions.
  3. The 20-state coalition’s complaint described here.
• That early pile-up of litigation shows how quickly the fee has become a flashpoint—pitting state governments and higher education against a White House that has made stricter work-visa rules part of its “America First” message.

Administration response

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers called the policy “lawful” and “a necessary, initial, incremental step” to prioritize American workers, discourage system abuse, prevent wage suppression, and give overseas talent more certainty.
President Trump has also said in a Fox News interview that the country needs foreign talent in some areas, even as his administration presses for stricter terms.

Practical issues for employers and workers

• The proclamation’s coverage hinges on whether petitions require consular notification versus those tied to direct USCIS approval without that step.
• The complaint says this technical distinction, combined with DHS discretion, raises the risk that two similar employers could face different outcomes.
• In practice, many employers and workers might not learn the true cost until late in the process—when timing is tight and the worker may already have made life plans around a job start date.

How courts and analysts may evaluate the policy

• Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests ongoing litigation may push agencies to explain publicly:
  • How they chose the $100,000 level, and
  • How they will decide who receives exemptions.
• That administrative record could be important as courts consider whether the government acted in an arbitrary and capricious way under the APA.

Current status and stakes

• As of December 15, 2025, the case was in its early stages with no reported rulings.
• The filing signals that the dispute has escalated from employer and advocacy-group challenges to a broader clash between state governments and the federal executive branch.
• The central legal question: how far a presidential proclamation can go in reshaping the cost of bringing high-skill workers into public and private jobs, and whether the administration must use ordinary rulemaking processes before imposing such a sweeping fee.