A $100,000 fee to hire an H-1B worker. Two days' notice. No exemptions for hospitals losing doctors or universities mid-research project.
On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation conditioning the entry of H-1B workers on their employers paying a six-figure fee, effective September 21. Hospitals scrambled to retain staff, tech companies froze hiring, and universities rushed to protect foreign researchers. Within days, a broad coalition of labor unions, healthcare systems, universities, religious groups, and individual workers filed suit, calling the measure unconstitutional, unlawful, and devastating to essential U.S. services.
Key Legal Claims
The lawsuit argues that the proclamation exceeds presidential authority because Congress already established the H-1B system with wage protections, numerical limits, and filing fees that total under $8,000. By creating a $100,000 surcharge, the President is replacing that legislative scheme with a unilateral "pay-to-play" system.
The plaintiffs also contend the proclamation was issued without the notice-and-comment process required by law, making it procedurally invalid. Finally, they describe it as arbitrary and capricious, because it disregards hospitals, schools, and research institutions that rely on H-1B professionals and ignores decades of evidence showing their positive role in U.S. innovation and job growth.
Industry Backlash
Major industry organizations are already backing the challenge:
- The American Medical Association said physician shortages, especially in rural areas, will worsen.
- National education groups warned schools will struggle to fill critical teaching and research positions.
- University leaders cautioned that postdoctoral researchers and faculty essential to U.S. innovation will be locked out.
- Technology economists emphasized that H-1B workers have accounted for up to half of U.S. productivity growth in recent decades.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs, which include the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, healthcare providers, and religious organizations, are urging the court to strike down the proclamation in its entirety. Their request goes beyond simply blocking the $100,000 fee. They are asking the court to declare that the President lacks the authority to impose new visa costs without Congressional approval, to prevent USCIS, the State Department, and Customs and Border Protection from enforcing the fee through either petition adjudications or visa processing, and to vacate the agency guidance that was hastily issued after the proclamation.
The coalition has also asked for both temporary and permanent injunctions to ensure that employers are not placed in a state of legal limbo while the case proceeds. In addition, they are seeking recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, underscoring the financial burden that the sudden fee has already imposed on institutions ranging from hospitals to universities.
Lawsuit Timeline: What Happens Next
If the TRO is granted, the case will move quickly to a preliminary injunction hearing, where the plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that blocking the fee serves the public interest.
The government is expected to argue that the President acted under broad authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry of foreign nationals for national interests. The Justice Department may also raise procedural defenses, such as lack of standing and deference to executive discretion on immigration.
Regardless of the outcome at the district court, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is almost certain, and given the constitutional questions over separation of powers, this case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
By the Numbers: How the $100,000 Fee Breaks Down
The financial impact of the $100,000 fee is staggering:
- Typical pre-proclamation costs: H-1B filing expenses, including government fees and legal fees, averaged between $10,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the company and whether it was subject to the additional $4,000 surcharge that applies to large employers with 50 or more workers in the U.S., where more than half of those employees are already on H-1B or L-1 visas.
- Post-proclamation costs: Each case now exceeds $110,000, an increase of 1,000 percent.
- National impact: Applied across the annual cap of 85,000 visas, the surcharge would remove about $8.5 billion from U.S. employers every year.
- Per-worker impact: For a single worker with a three-year approval, the added expense averages $36,000 to $38,000 per year, depending on the employer's category.
For context, according to a bipartisan Congressional report, the median H-1B wage in 2024 was $120,000. The new $100,000 surcharge is comparable in size to a full year of median wages, creating a situation where employers must pay the equivalent of a year's salary upfront to the government, with no refund and no guarantee the petition will be approved. Compounding the problem, the proclamation offers only a vague "national interest" exemption with no defined standards, raising concerns about favoritism and inconsistent application.
Why This Case Matters
The impact of this case reaches well beyond the H-1B program. Hospitals that already face shortages could lose physicians and other critical staff. Universities might have to scale back or shut down research projects if they cannot bring in international scholars. Nonprofits and religious institutions could be blocked from hiring workers essential to their missions. Companies that rely on global engineering and technology talent could face immediate disruption in their ability to compete and grow.
Equally important is the legal dimension. This lawsuit is not just about one fee, but about whether a president can unilaterally rewrite the rules of a visa program that Congress carefully designed. If courts uphold the $100,000 surcharge, it would create a precedent allowing future administrations to impose sweeping new costs or conditions on other visa categories without going through Congress. That could fundamentally shift how U.S. immigration law is made and applied.
Employer Action Steps
Until a court rules, the proclamation technically remains in effect. However, the government has not issued any guidance on how the $100,000 fee would be collected or from whom. Employers with pending petitions for workers abroad should closely track filing dates, preserve all documentation, and wait for further clarity before attempting any payment. Companies planning for the 2026 H-1B cap should budget for both outcomes, identify which positions are critical, and explore alternatives such as L-1, O-1, or TN visas.
For current H-1B employees, it may be safer to file change-of-status petitions for those already in the U.S. and to delay international travel until legal clarity emerges. Employers should keep detailed records of their costs and decision-making in case relief is granted.
Broader Context
This lawsuit is only one part of a broader shift in how the U.S. regulates and restricts skilled immigration. It highlights an emerging trend of using executive authority to reshape visa programs in ways that Congress has traditionally controlled.
For more on recent H-1B changes and their implications for employers, read The $100,000 H-1B: An Analysis and The New H-1B Lottery Proposal: What Employers Need to Know.
Key Takeaways
- The $100,000 H-1B fee is facing an immediate legal challenge on constitutional, statutory, and procedural grounds.
- An early court ruling on a temporary restraining order could determine whether the policy takes effect at all.
- The case could set a major precedent on presidential power to alter visa programs through proclamation.
- Employers should prepare for uncertainty, both in ongoing H-1B processing and in broader immigration policy shifts heading into 2026.
Get Expert Advice
Our immigration team can help assess how this lawsuit affects your hiring strategy, what visa alternatives may be available, and how to prepare for the coming policy shifts.
Regardless of the court's outcome, the administration's move signals a continuing push toward immigration policies that privilege wealth and restrict access. Companies cannot afford to assume that established visa categories will remain stable. The organizations that will weather this uncertainty best are those that plan proactively, diversify their talent strategies, and stay closely connected to legal developments as they unfold.
FAQ: The H-1B $100,000 Fee Lawsuit
What is the $100,000 fee and when did it take
effect?
It is a one-time payment for new H-1B petitions filed on or after
September 21, 2025, required by presidential proclamation.
Does it apply to current H-1B workers?
No. The proclamation is aimed at new petitions. Extensions filed
inside the U.S. are not affected. What remains unclear is whether
the $100,000 fee would also apply to H-1B transfer petitions or to
change-of-status petitions if the beneficiary later travels outside
the United States. Until the government issues guidance, employers
and workers are left without certainty on how these scenarios will
be treated.
Can universities and nonprofits avoid it?
No. The proclamation applies equally to cap-subject and cap-exempt
employers.
What about refunds if the policy is struck
down?
Refunds may be possible if courts vacate the policy, but the
process would depend on the order and agency guidance.
What alternatives exist?
Other visa categories such as L-1, O-1, TN, and J-1 are not subject
to the fee.
Who are the plaintiffs?
The case is Global Nurse Force v. Trump, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Has any president imposed such a large visa fee
before?
No. Previous fees were much smaller and established by Congress,
not by proclamation.
Will this affect the April 2026 H-1B
lottery?
Unless blocked, yes. Employers will need to factor the $100,000
into lottery planning.
H-1B Lawsuit Challenges Trump's $100,000 Visa Fee: What Employers Need to Know
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
