Highlights
- A coalition of unions, employers, religious groups, and healthcare providers has filed the first federal lawsuit against President Trump’s new $100,000 H-1B visa fee.
- The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, argues Trump overstepped his constitutional authority, as only Congress can impose taxes or fees.
- Plaintiffs warn the measure will devastate hospitals, schools, churches, and tech companies that depend on H-1B workers.
- The Trump administration defends the fee as necessary to stop abuse of the program and protect American jobs.
A sweeping coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and university professors has launched the first major legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco, contends the administration has thrown the immigration system into disarray and exceeded its constitutional authority.
Trump announced the unprecedented policy through a proclamation on September 19, arguing that the H-1B program — which brings tens of thousands of high-skilled foreign workers to the United States each year — had been “deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.”
The order was slated to take effect just 36 hours later, sparking panic among employers who scrambled to get workers back into the country before the rules changed.
The proclamation requires employers to pay an additional $100,000 for each new H-1B hire, on top of existing fees that typically range between $2,000 and $5,000. The order does not apply to current H-1B holders or to petitions filed before September 21.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs — including the United Auto Workers union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), healthcare providers, and religious groups — argue that Trump has effectively upended a congressionally created program by executive fiat. They claim the proclamation “has thrown employers, workers and federal agencies into chaos,” and must be blocked.
“Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators,” the Democracy Forward Foundation and Justice Action Center, representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint press release.
The H-1B visa, first introduced by Congress in 1992, allows U.S. employers to hire temporary foreign workers in specialized fields such as technology, medicine, engineering, and education. The program issues 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants with advanced degrees. Historically, visas have been allocated by lottery due to high demand.
The lawsuit underscores the broad impact of the H-1B program beyond Silicon Valley. According to the plaintiffs, about a third of H-1B visa holders are employed as nurses, physicians, teachers, scholars, priests, and pastors. Hospitals and universities warn that the fee could cripple staffing pipelines, while religious organizations say their ability to bring in clergy is at risk.
“The $100,000 fee will discourage the best and brightest minds from bringing life-saving research to the U.S.,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, in comments reported by the Associated Press.
Mike Miller, Region 6 Director of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, added: “Trump’s plan prioritizes wealth and connections over scientific acumen and diligence.”
Business leaders echo those concerns. Amazon was the largest recipient of H-1B visas this year with more than 10,000 awarded, followed by Tata Consultancy, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. California, home to many of these firms, employs the highest number of H-1B workers nationwide. For them, the fee could mean tens of millions in additional costs, even before factoring in the chilling effect on talent mobility.
For its part, the administration defends the measure as a necessary correction. Trump argued that large numbers of lower-wage workers in the H-1B program have “undercut its integrity” and posed a threat to national security by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology.
“The large-scale replacement of American workers” through H-1B visas, the president said, threatens the country’s economic and national security. Supporters of the fee claim that some outsourcing firms use the program to import workers at salaries as low as $60,000, well below the six-figure compensation typical for U.S. tech jobs.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a constitutional question: Can a president unilaterally impose new fees on a visa program created by Congress? The plaintiffs say no, pointing out that the Constitution reserves the power to levy taxes or fees to Congress.
The Proclamation transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either ‘pay to play’ or seek a ‘national interest’ exemption, which will be doled out at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, a system that opens the door to selective enforcement and corruption,” the lawsuit argues.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the “exorbitant fee” is illegal and invites corruption. “Congress created the program and Trump can’t rewrite it overnight or levy new taxes by executive order,” she said, as quoted by AP.
The lawsuit also challenges the administration for failing to follow the required rulemaking process, alleging agencies such as USCIS and the State Department adopted policies without proper notice or consideration of the impact on employers and innovation.
India is the largest beneficiary of the H-1B program. Last year, Indian nationals accounted for 71 percent of approved visas, while China received 11.7 percent, according to government data.
The steep new fee is expected to hit Indian professionals particularly hard, potentially straining U.S.-India relations at a time when Washington has sought closer ties with New Delhi.
The plaintiffs are seeking an immediate injunction to halt enforcement of the fee. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments in the coming weeks. In the meantime, uncertainty reigns. Employers are unsure whether to proceed with petitions, and workers remain in limbo.
If the court rules against the administration, it would be a major rebuke to Trump’s expansive claims of executive authority over immigration. If the order stands, however, it could permanently reshape one of America’s most significant pathways for high-skilled immigration, with ripple effects across the economy, education, healthcare, and international diplomacy.
For now, the lawsuit represents the first but likely not the last challenge to a policy that critics say risks shutting America’s doors to global talent while entangling employers and workers in costly, confusing red tape.