Twenty US States Challenge Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, Raising Fresh Questions Over Executive Power and Labour Policy
A sweeping legal challenge by 20 US states against President Donald Trump’s newly imposed $100,000 H-1B visa fee has escalated into a high-stakes confrontation over immigration authority, workforce stability, and the limits of presidential power. Led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the lawsuit argues that the unprecedented surcharge is illegal, economically disruptive, and likely to deepen labour shortages across critical public services.
Filed in federal court, the case places renewed scrutiny on how immigration policy intersects with education, healthcare, and state-run institutions that rely heavily on skilled foreign professionals.
Why States Say the $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Crosses Legal Boundaries
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by imposing the fee through a presidential proclamation rather than legislation. The states argue that Congress has long set clear limits on H-1B visa fees, restricting them to levels that cover administrative costs rather than acting as a deterrent or revenue tool.
According to the filing, the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing the rulemaking process and sidestepping congressional oversight. The states maintain that such a dramatic increase—far above existing statutory limits—cannot be justified under current immigration law.
The fee applies to all new H-1B visa petitions filed after September 21, 2025, creating what state officials describe as an immediate and disruptive financial shock for employers that depend on the programme.
Also Read : What an $800 Billion Valuation Tells Investors About SpaceX’s IPO Timeline
How the H-1B Programme Supports Education, Healthcare, and Public Services
The H-1B visa system allows US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialised fields such as technology, engineering, medicine, and higher education. While the programme is often associated with Silicon Valley, state attorneys general emphasise that public institutions are among its most frequent users.
Universities rely on H-1B visas to recruit professors and researchers, while hospitals and clinics depend on foreign-trained doctors, nurses, and specialists to fill persistent staffing gaps. State and local governments also use the programme to hire engineers, IT specialists, and data professionals.
Rob Bonta warned that the new fee would place an unsustainable burden on public employers already facing budget constraints, potentially forcing them to scale back services or leave critical roles unfilled.
Why California and Other States See Economic and Social Risks
California, described by Bonta as the world’s fourth-largest economy if measured independently, has positioned itself at the centre of the legal challenge. State officials argue that global talent has been a cornerstone of economic growth, innovation, and public service delivery.
By sharply increasing the cost of hiring skilled foreign workers, the states contend that the policy undermines competitiveness and weakens essential systems. In healthcare, the concern is that higher costs will worsen existing shortages, particularly in rural and underserved communities. In education, universities fear losing access to global talent that supports research output and teaching capacity.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who is co-leading the case, echoed these concerns, pointing to the reliance of teaching hospitals and research institutions on international professionals.
How the New Fee Compares With Existing H-1B Costs
Under current rules, employers typically pay between $960 and $7,595 in H-1B-related fees, depending on company size and the nature of the petition. These charges cover processing, fraud prevention, and workforce training programmes mandated by Congress.
The jump to a $100,000 fee represents an order-of-magnitude increase that critics say effectively prices many employers out of the programme. State officials argue that the scale of the increase suggests an intent to restrict access rather than administer the system.
Supporters of the policy, however, maintain that the higher fee is necessary to curb misuse of the H-1B programme and prioritise domestic hiring, framing it as a corrective measure rather than a barrier.
The Growing Wave of Legal Opposition Facing the Administration
The lawsuit by the 20 states adds to a growing list of legal challenges against the policy. Business groups, labour unions, and employer associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have also filed suits questioning whether the executive branch has the authority to impose such a surcharge unilaterally.
Legal experts note that courts will likely focus on whether the fee aligns with congressional intent and whether the administration followed proper procedural requirements. Past rulings on immigration-related executive actions suggest that outcomes could hinge on how narrowly or broadly judges interpret presidential discretion.
What the Case Could Mean for Employers and Skilled Migrants
For employers, particularly in public education and healthcare, the uncertainty surrounding the fee complicates workforce planning for 2026 and beyond. Institutions may delay hiring decisions or seek alternative staffing models while the case works its way through the courts.
For skilled migrants, the lawsuit introduces another layer of unpredictability into an already complex visa landscape. If upheld, the fee could significantly reduce opportunities to work in the US, particularly for roles that are critical but not highly paid.
Why the Lawsuit Has Broader Implications for Immigration Policy
Beyond the immediate question of the $100,000 H-1B fee, the case carries broader implications for how immigration policy is made in the United States. A ruling against the administration could reinforce congressional authority over visa programmes and limit the use of executive actions to reshape them.
For now, the legal battle underscores the tension between efforts to tighten immigration controls and the economic realities of a labour market that continues to depend on global talent. As the case proceeds, investors and employers alike will be watching closely for signals about how far executive power can extend in redefining the cost of access to the US workforce.
