A legal battle unfolding in an Oakland courtroom over President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on certain H-1B workers took an unexpected turn on Thursday. According to Bloomberg, a government lawyer told the court that only about 70 employers have paid the charge so far.
The increased fee applies to H-1B workers hired from outside the United States. It was introduced through a White House proclamation in September 2025 as part of a broader immigration crackdown.
During the hearing in Oakland, the government’s counsel pointed to the small number of companies that have paid the fee, suggesting that the figure speaks for itself.
READ: ‘Make it per day’: Metaview CTO’s viral response to proposed H-1B fee hike (
Building on that argument, Tiberius Davis, a Department of Justice attorney, told the court that the relatively small pool of employers who have paid the $100,000 charge weakens the claim that the policy functions as a revenue measure. If it were truly designed to generate money, he suggested, the numbers would look very different.
“The small number of fee payers goes to show it’s not a tax because it’s not raising revenue,” Davis stated, as per Bloomberg.
The debate is playing out at a delicate moment. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Trump administration’s global tariffs framework, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to impose taxes.
Against that backdrop, the government has maintained that the H-1B fee is not designed to generate revenue and therefore does not require the same explicit approval from Congress that a tax would.
The Oakland lawsuit was brought by Global Nurse Force, a nurse recruitment company, along with other plaintiffs. They contend that the $100,000 H-1B charge has, in effect, shut small employers out of the specialty occupation visa program.
The H-1B program allows U.S. companies to bring in skilled foreign professionals for specialized roles. According to the plaintiffs, the steep fee makes participation financially unworkable for smaller businesses.
Expanding on their challenge, Global Nurse Force argues that Congress permitted immigration fees only to recover the administrative costs of running visa programs, not to erect financial roadblocks. The lawsuit describes the $100,000 charge as “arbitrary and capricious” and alleges that the government bypassed the notice and comment process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Attorneys contesting the fee say the recent ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States bolsters their position. Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for the plaintiffs, said the court has made clear that the distinction between regulatory fees and revenue measures cannot be used to sidestep constitutional limits.
“The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterised as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly,” she said. “That delegation has to be expressed.”
Sung also cited the decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, noting that it reaffirmed a core principle: the authority to levy taxes rests with Congress, not the executive branch.
In response, Davis pushed back in court. He argued that the fee was introduced through a presidential proclamation rather than an executive order, and therefore falls outside the scope of review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The hearing was held at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
Bloomberg reported that the judge did not rule on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction or their motion seeking class certification. He did, however, reject the government’s request to put the case on hold while a related matter proceeds on appeal in Washington.
Judge Gilliam also directed both sides to submit additional written arguments addressing how the Supreme Court’s recent tariffs decision might influence the legal questions surrounding the H-1B fee.