In September 2025, the Trump administration issued a sweeping proclamation introducing a $100,000 filing fee for every H-1B visa petition, including both initial filings and extensions. This executive action, widely referred to as Trump’s 100,000 fee, has sparked significant legal and public debate, with critics arguing it was implemented to restrict immigration and alter the existing visa program. The measure—framed as part of a broader “America First” agenda to curb perceived abuse of the H-1B program—triggered an immediate backlash across the tech industry, universities, and immigrant advocacy groups.
Within days, a coalition of employers, legal organizations, and nonprofit advocates filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the new fee. They argue that the proclamation violates multiple provisions of federal law and the Constitution, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers doctrine.
This article offers a comprehensive, plain-language guide to understanding the lawsuit, its background, key legal claims, implications for employers and workers, and potential outcomes.
Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee is unconstitutional and was enacted without following the legally required rulemaking process.”
Background — The $100,000 H-1B Filing Fee Proclamation
On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation published in the Federal Register, mandating a $100,000 nonrefundable filing fee for each H-1B petition filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This executive action, part of President Donald Trump’s broader immigration policy changes, has significant implications for employers and foreign workers. The new policy, often referred to as the ‘100,000 fee for H-1B’ or ‘fee for H 1B’, applies to new petitions filed after September 21, 2025, and does not affect existing H-1B visa holders.
What the Fee Covers
According to the administration, the fee would apply to:
- All new H-1B petitions filed by U.S. employers
- All extensions or amendments of existing H-1B petitions
- All cap-exempt petitions (e.g., universities, research institutions, nonprofit affiliates)
Stated Rationale
The White House claimed the fee was necessary to:
- Offset the costs of fraud prevention and site inspections
- “Ensure American workers are not displaced by cheap foreign labor”
- “Reinvest in U.S. workforce training and compliance oversight”
- Protect American workers from exploitation by companies that replace them with lower-paid foreign labor
Critics argue that the H-1B program has been used to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labor and lower skilled labor, and that it has been deliberately exploited by some employers to artificially suppress wages.
However, the pre-existing H1B filing fee regime already collects multiple fees totaling less than $10,000, including the fraud fee, ACWIA training fee, and premium processing fee. Employers who sponsor H-1B workers currently pay fees between $2,000 and $5,000.
Immigration Attorney Richard Herman: “The $100,000 H-1B fee effectively serves as a de facto ban, especially for startups, nonprofits, and universities.”
DOJ and Trump Administration Defense
The Department of Justice (DOJ), defending the administration, contends that:
- The President acted under INA §214(c), which grants broad discretion to regulate visa issuance, including the authority to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals.
- The fee promotes the “national interest” by safeguarding American jobs.
- The measure is an “emergency economic action” not subject to standard APA procedures.
The DOJ further argues that Congress implicitly authorized the President to adjust visa-related costs in response to labor market disruptions.
The administration insists the $100K fee is a lawful exercise of presidential discretion under existing immigration statutes. However, critics argue that the President cannot unilaterally generate revenue through such fees, as the power to generate revenue is reserved for Congress.
Impact on Employers and Foreign Workers
The fee’s immediate impact is severe and far-reaching. The sudden implementation has thrown employers into confusion, disrupting hiring plans across multiple industries. The H-1B program offers 65,000 visas annually, plus another 20,000 for workers with advanced degrees.
This new fee makes it significantly harder for companies to hire foreign workers, especially those who rely on temporary foreign workers to fill specialized roles in healthcare, education, and technology. As a result, both U.S. and foreign workers may face a disadvantageous labor market, with fewer opportunities and increased uncertainty due to these abrupt policy changes.
1. Financial Barriers for Employers
- Small and mid-sized businesses can no longer afford to hire global talent.
- Startups in STEM and AI sectors report freezing hiring plans.
- Universities and nonprofits, historically cap-exempt, are also affected.
- Major labor unions, including the United Auto Workers union and United Automobile, have voiced strong opposition to the fee due to its impact on their members and the broader workforce.
2. Effect on H-1B Workers
- Many H-1B professionals face job insecurity as employers withdraw filings. This policy puts individual highly skilled workers and qualified foreign talent at risk, threatening the retention of the highest skilled subset of professionals in critical fields such as healthcare, education, and technology.
- Extensions and amendments—previously routine—have become cost-prohibitive.
- Dual intent pathways (from H-1B to green card) risk collapsing.
- India accounted for 71% of approved H-1B visas last year, making it the largest beneficiary.
Comparison Chart: H-1B Costs Before and After Proclamation
|
Fee Type |
Pre-Trump Fee (Approx.) |
Trump $100K Fee (2025) |
% Increase |
| Base USCIS Fee | $460 | $460 | 0% |
| Fraud Prevention | $500 | $500 | 0% |
| ACWIA Training | $1,500 | $1,500 | 0% |
| Premium Processing | $2,805 | $2,805 | 0% |
| New Trump Proclamation Fee | — | $100,000 | +2,000% |
| Total Estimated Cost | ~$9,000 | ~$109,000 | +1,100% |
Data derived from Department of Labor OFLC Data Center and USCIS filings.
Broader Policy Context
The $100K fee is part of Trump’s 2025–2026 H-1B enforcement campaign, which also includes:
- Project Firewall: A Department of Labor initiative auditing H-1B compliance
- Expanded site visits by USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS)
- Increased wage requirements and LCA scrutiny
Homeland Security’s agencies play a central role in implementing and enforcing these new H-1B visa policies.
Labor unions and international union groups have joined the opposition to the fee, forming a broader coalition challenging the policy in court and advocating for workers’ rights.
Compared to the Biden-era H-1B Modernization Rule (2024)—which streamlined online filings and aimed to reduce fraud—the Trump policy marks a regressive reversal toward exclusionary economics.
Richard T. Herman, Esq.: “The $100K fee fits into a broader campaign to restrict employment-based immigration through financial deterrence.”
Who Filed the Lawsuit and Why
The first and, so far, only federal lawsuit challenging Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee was filed on October 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The case is titled Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-08454). You can read the full filed complaint (PDF) hosted by Democracy Forward.
The plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of advocacy and legal groups including the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward, and the American Immigration Council. The Democracy Forward Foundation, a national legal organization advocating for democracy and social progress through litigation and policy engagement, is playing a key role in organizing and supporting the legal challenge. Religious groups filed the lawsuit alongside unions, healthcare providers, and other advocacy organizations, highlighting the broad coalition opposing the fee. The plaintiffs include faculty and academic professionals, academic professionals, and higher education members such as university faculty, staff, and researchers, all of whom are impacted by the policy. Additionally, the plaintiffs represent medical residents, fellows, interns, and nurses serving in underserved and rural communities, as well as other essential professionals. The suit seeks injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the fee is unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Plaintiffs
The broad plaintiff group reflects how widely the proclamation affects U.S. employers and institutions. It includes:
- Global Nurse Force, a healthcare recruiting firm connecting international nurses with U.S. hospitals, including nurses serving rural and medically underserved communities who are essential health care providers and at risk to lose medical staff if the fee remains in effect
- UAW Local 4811 (representing post-docs and academic workers), highlighting the risk to lose teachers in educational institutions
- SEIU Committee of Interns & Residents
- American Association of University Professors
- Global Village Academy Collaborative (a public charter school network), which could also lose teachers due to increased costs
- Society of the Divine Word – Chicago Province and other religious organizations employing international clergy and religious professionals, who may lose pastors and other essential staff
- Individual H-1B workers, including a pseudonymous healthcare worker “Phoenix Doe,” who faces job loss if the fee remains in effect, as well as agricultural implement workers who are vital to rural economies
These diverse plaintiffs illustrate that the $100,000 charge is not limited to tech firms — it strikes education, healthcare, and religious sectors as well, impacting religious professionals, agricultural implement workers, and those serving medically underserved communities.
Defendants
Named defendants are:
- President Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity;
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Secretary Kristi Noem;
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Director Joseph B. Edlow;
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Commissioner Rodney Scott;
- Department of State and Secretary Marco Rubio.
Key Legal Arguments
The 65-page complaint opens by declaring:
“Defendants’ abrupt imposition of the $100,000 Requirement is unlawful. The President has no authority to unilaterally alter the comprehensive statutory scheme Congress enacted to govern the H-1B visa program.”
The case was filed in federal court on a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the presidential proclamation and its compliance with statutory law.
The plaintiffs set out five principal legal theories:
When discussing the H-1B program, it is important to note that applicants must undergo a rigorous review process to qualify, ensuring only highly skilled professionals are admitted.
1. Ultra Vires / Lack of Statutory Authority
The complaint argues that neither INA § 212(f) nor § 215(a) — the provisions cited in Trump’s Sept 19 Proclamation — authorize conditioning visa eligibility on payment of $100,000.
“Neither INA § 212(f) nor § 215(a) authorizes the President to impose the $100,000 Requirement,”
they write, calling the action ultra vires, or beyond legal authority.
2. Separation of Powers and Tax Clause
By imposing what is effectively a revenue-raising exaction, the President invades Congress’s Article I taxing and spending powers. The complaint notes that 8 U.S.C. § 1356(m) narrowly allows DHS to set cost-recovery fees, not blanket payments of this magnitude.
“The President’s proclamation attempts to reassign to himself the power to impose a sweeping charge on lawful immigration and to override Congress’s scheme for allocating immigration benefits.”
3. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Violations
Federal agencies implemented the fee without notice-and-comment rulemaking, contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 553. USCIS, CBP, and State reportedly issued binding directives overnight, turning the proclamation into enforceable policy without public input. Plaintiffs label this arbitrary and capricious because the government ignored reliance interests and offered no evidence that the amount deters fraud or aids U.S. workers.
4. Conflict with the INA’s Comprehensive Framework
Congress has already set specific caps, eligibility criteria, and fee levels for the H-1B program. The new requirement collides with those statutes, upsetting the balance Congress struck between employer access and worker protections.
5. Constitutional Claims (Due Process and Equal Protection)
The $100,000 charge targets foreign nationals and their U.S. employers, creating disparate impacts across industries dependent on legal immigration. Plaintiffs assert this irrational discrimination violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection component and that its sudden rollout deprived stakeholders of due process.
Relief Sought and Procedural Status
The plaintiffs request:
- A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting enforcement;
- A Preliminary Injunction pending final judgment;
- A Declaratory Judgment that the proclamation and agency actions are unlawful;
- A Permanent Injunction preventing future use of such a fee absent congressional authorization.
As of October 2025, the case has been assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California. A hearing on the TRO will likely be held the week of October 7, 2025. Updates are posted via theDemocracy Forward case page and the Justice Action Center docket summary.
If the TRO or preliminary injunction is granted, USCIS and the State Department will be barred from collecting the $100,000 fee while litigation continues.
Reactions from Key Stakeholders
The announcement of the $100,000 H-1B filing fee — and the ensuing Global Nurse Force v. Trump lawsuit — has triggered a wave of public criticism from across the professional, academic, and policy spectrum. Immigration lawyers, universities, employers, and advocacy organizations have described the measure as “economically destructive”, “legally indefensible”, and “a de facto ban on skilled immigration.” Many stakeholders stress that the H-1B program is designed to attract highly skilled professionals who are essential to strengthen American innovation and support key innovators in the U.S. economy.
Below are highlights of the most significant reactions.
1. Immigration Lawyers and Legal Advocates
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) issued a strong condemnation within hours of the proclamation:
“The $100,000 fee is not about protecting U.S. workers — it is about shutting the door on lawful, employment-based immigration. This action bypasses Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act and will not withstand judicial review.”
AILA’s statement also warned that:
“USCIS has no authority to implement a presidential tax on visa petitions.”
Similarly, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) called the policy a “pay-to-play wall”, noting it would:
“exclude small employers and non-profits from ever participating in the H-1B program.”
The American Immigration Council, co-counsel in the California case, emphasized that the proclamation
“creates chaos across agencies, violates due process, and punishes those following the law.”
Attorney Richard T. Herman: “Immigration lawyers call Trump’s $100K H-1B fee a ‘pay-to-play wall’ that prices lawful employers and skilled workers out of the system.”
2. Universities and Research Institutions
Universities — long reliant on H-1B scholars, post-doctoral researchers, and specialized instructors — warned of devastating consequences. Universities emphasize the importance of both international faculty and qualified American workers in maintaining academic excellence.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a named plaintiff, stated:
“This proclamation undermines academic freedom and global collaboration by making it impossible for U.S. universities to hire international faculty. It’s an attack on higher education’s mission.”
University of California President Michael Drake told reporters the fee
“would decimate post-doc hiring and cut off vital research pipelines.”
The Association of American Universities (AAU) urged the administration to rescind the rule, noting that foreign-born researchers account for over half of U.S. doctoral-level scientists in engineering and computer science.
Universities warn the $100K H-1B fee will halt research hiring and cripple U.S. innovation pipelines.
3. Employers and Industry Groups
The business community has been blunt in its opposition. In statements to Reuters and Bloomberg, several major tech firms — including Google, Microsoft, and Amazon — criticized the fee as
“a functional ban on global talent.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called it “economically reckless,” saying:
“A $100,000 levy per petition would make compliance impossible for startups, small manufacturers, and health-care employers — sectors already struggling with labor shortages.”
TechNet, a network of technology CEOs, warned that
“the policy will drive jobs overseas and incentivize companies to relocate R&D operations.”
In an editorial, Forbes noted the fee “acts as a $100,000 tariff on knowledge”, discouraging the very innovation the U.S. economy depends on.
Richard Herman, Immigration Advocate: “Business coalitions say Trump’s $100K H-1B fee acts as a ‘tariff on knowledge’ that will push innovation abroad.”
4. Health-Care and Nonprofit Sectors
The SEIU Committee of Interns & Residents, another plaintiff, highlighted that thousands of international doctors and medical residents rely on H-1B status:
“Hospitals cannot pay $100,000 for every resident. This rule would devastate patient care in underserved communities.”
Global Nurse Force, the lead plaintiff, emphasized that U.S. hospitals already face severe nursing shortages. Founder Rachel Abraham said:
“This proclamation threatens to collapse critical staffing pipelines just as America faces a generational health-care crisis.”
Faith-based organizations echoed the concern. The Society of the Divine Word and the Missionaries of St. Charles, both plaintiffs, stated that the fee
“prevents religious organizations from lawfully bringing clergy and humanitarian workers.”
5. Economic and Policy Analysts
Economists across ideological lines have warned that the $100K fee will reduce U.S. competitiveness and accelerate talent flight:
- Drive talent relocation to Canada, the U.K., and India
- Trigger a brain drain from U.S. universities
- Undermine STEM competitiveness
A Cato Institute analysis estimated the policy could cut H-1B filings by 85 percent, with disproportionate losses in STEM sectors.
A Brookings Institution brief concluded that “no cost-benefit analysis supports such an exaction” and that the move “violates the core principles of procedural governance.”
The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) projected that the rule could outsource up to 250,000 jobs over two years due to employer relocation.
Immigration Law Expert Richard Herman: “Economists warn the $100K H-1B fee could cut filings by 85 percent and export high-tech jobs overseas.”
6. Political and Public Response
Members of Congress from both parties have voiced alarm.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said the measure “turns legal immigration into a luxury good.”
Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) called it “a cynical backdoor ban on skilled immigration.”
Even some Republicans expressed caution:
Senator Todd Young (R-IN), co-author of the CHIPS and Science Act, warned the policy “risks undermining U.S. semiconductor goals by cutting off global talent.”
Public polling from Pew Research (October 2025) showed that 62 percent of Americans oppose a $100,000 visa fee, including majorities of both parties.
Summary of Stakeholder Positions
|
Group |
Position |
Core Concern |
| AILA / Legal Advocates | Oppose | Violates APA, oversteps authority |
| Universities / AAUP | Oppose | Blocks global hiring & research |
| Employers / TechNet / Chamber | Oppose | Economic harm, offshoring risk |
| Health & Religious Orgs | Oppose | Threatens staffing & mission work |
| Economists / Think Tanks | Oppose | No evidence, job loss projection |
| Lawmakers | Mostly Oppose | Separation of powers, economic fallout |
Herman Legal Group law firm “Across sectors — from universities to tech to hospitals — stakeholders say Trump’s $100K H-1B fee is unlawful, unworkable, and economically self-defeating.”
Procedural Status — Where the Case Stands Now
As of October 2025, the only active federal lawsuit challenging the $100,000 H-1B fee — Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-08454) — is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The lawsuit includes India residing and United Kingdom residing foreign nationals living in the Northern District of California.
You can follow official filings via theDemocracy Forward case page and theJustice Action Center docket summary.
Timeline of Key Filings and Hearings
- September 19, 2025 — President Trump issued the Federal Register Proclamation establishing the $100,000 filing fee.
- September 21–30, 2025 — USCIS and the Department of State released policy memos directing immediate collection of the new payment for all H-1B petitions.
- October 3, 2025 — Plaintiffs filed their 65-page complaint (PDF) in the Northern District of California, asserting ultra vires, APA, constitutional, and statutory-conflict claims.
- October 4, 2025 — Plaintiffs moved for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to block fee enforcement before the start of the next filing cycle.
- October 5, 2025 — Judge Jon S. Tigar was randomly assigned to the case.
· · Next expected step: The court is likely to schedule an initial hearing during the week of October 7–11, 2025, on the plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
· · No ruling has been issued yet; briefing deadlines and oral-argument dates are still pending confirmation on the Democracy Forward case page.
If the TRO is granted, USCIS and the State Department will be immediately barred from requiring payment of the $100,000 fee during adjudication or visa issuance.
If denied, plaintiffs are expected to file an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and seek an emergency stay.
Scope of Requested Injunction
The motion seeks nationwide relief, applying to all employers and H-1B workers, not only the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that limiting relief to their organizations would be “impracticable given the uniform application of the Proclamation.”
The government, represented by the DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation, contends that any injunction should be geographically narrow.
Judicial Outlook
Judge Tigar has previously handled high-profile immigration cases involving INA § 212(f) authority (including travel-ban-related suits). Legal observers note that his prior opinions emphasized textual limits on executive power and APA compliance.
Given that background, many analysts view this bench as sympathetic to statutory-limit arguments but cautious about granting sweeping injunctions.
Attorney Richard Herman: “The Northern District of California is expected to rule on whether Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee can take effect, with a decision on emergency relief likely by late October 2025.”
Possible Outcomes and Scenarios
With Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, et al. now pending before Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California, the next major event will be the court’s ruling on the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction.
How the court decides could determine whether the $100,000 H-1B fee ever takes effect—or becomes the latest in a series of executive immigration fee rules struck down for overreach.
1. TRO / Preliminary Injunction Granted
If Judge Tigar finds the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits under the Administrative Procedure Act or INA §§ 212(f), 215(a) limits, he may issue a nationwide injunction halting enforcement.
Immediate effects:
- USCIS, CBP, and the State Department must suspend collection of the $100,000 fee for all pending and future H-1B filings.
- Employers can continue petitioning under existing statutory fees (about $9,000 total).
- The injunction would stay in effect until a final judgment or appellate reversal.
The government could appeal the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which oversees California. The DOJ would likely seek an emergency stay of the injunction pending appeal.
Herman Legal Group: “If the California court enjoins the $100K H-1B fee, USCIS will have to pause collections nationwide while appeals play out.”
2. TRO Denied / Fee Takes Effect Temporarily
If the court denies emergency relief, the $100,000 requirement remains enforceable, forcing employers to pay the fee for new petitions or risk denial.
Consequences:
- Many organizations—particularly universities, non-profits, and health-care systems—would withdraw or freeze petitions.
- Plaintiffs could file an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, requesting an emergency injunction pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a).**
- A panel could issue a temporary administrative stay, pausing enforcement within days.
Historically, Ninth Circuit panels have been skeptical of unilateral immigration restrictions, citing textual and procedural constraints on executive power.
3. Partial Relief or Narrow Injunction
Judge Tigar may craft a targeted remedy, exempting certain sectors (e.g., non-profits, religious institutions, cap-exempt universities) while allowing enforcement elsewhere.
This sector-specific injunction would mitigate humanitarian and educational harms but leave private employers facing steep costs.
Possible split outcome:
|
Sector |
Fee Status if Partial Injunction |
| Universities / Non-profits | Suspended |
| Private Tech & Business Employers | Still enforced |
| Health-care & Religious Employers | Possibly exempt |
| Future Filings Post-Decision | Subject to ruling scope |
Such partial relief mirrors prior California decisions limiting Trump-era proclamations under §212(f).
4. Government Appeal and Stay Application
Regardless of outcome, the losing party will appeal. If plaintiffs win an injunction, the DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation is expected to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit within 14 days, paired with a motion for stay pending appeal.
If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction, the administration could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)—a path previously used in travel-ban litigation.
Herman Legal Group: “Any ruling on the $100K H-1B fee is likely to be appealed quickly to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.”
5. Settlement or Voluntary Withdrawal
If political or economic pressure mounts, the administration could rescind or amend the proclamation through a supplemental Federal Register notice.
Such a move would moot portions of the case but might leave disputes over agency implementation costs or retroactive reimbursements.
Past precedents—like the 2020 USCIS Fee Rule withdrawal after adverse litigation—show that administrations sometimes backtrack once early court signals appear unfavorable.
6. Final Merits Decision (2026 Timeline)
If litigation proceeds past preliminary stages, the court would hold summary-judgment briefing in early 2026.
Possible endgames:
- Plaintiffs prevail: Court vacates the proclamation, citing APA and INA violations.
- Government prevails: Court defers to executive discretion under §212(f); fee could resume pending any Supreme Court review.
Given the constitutional questions raised—particularly under the Nondelegation and Major Questions Doctrine—a final decision could shape presidential power over visa policy for years.
Practical Takeaway
Until a definitive ruling:
- Employers should track filings on the Democracy Forward docket and Justice Action Center updates.
- Consider early petition submission under injunction coverage.
- Maintain alternative visa strategies (O-1, TN, E-2) if the fee is upheld.
Comparison to Past Immigration Fee Lawsuits
The legal challenge to Trump’s $100,000 H-1B filing fee is not occurring in a vacuum. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar attempts by prior administrations to impose new immigration fees or restrictions without congressional approval or required rulemaking. Critics have argued that the H-1B program has been deliberately exploited by some employers to replace American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor, fueling calls for regulatory or legal intervention.
The Global Nurse Force v. Trump case in California builds on a growing body of APA and constitutional precedents limiting executive discretion in immigration finance.
1. Parallels with the 2020 USCIS Fee Rule (ILRC v. Wolf)
In 2020, under then-acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, USCIS issued a regulation sharply increasing naturalization and visa fees. The rule was challenged in Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, Case No. 4:20-cv-05883 (N.D. Cal.), and struck down in September 2020.
You can review the decision via the court’s opinion (PDF) andUSCIS’ rescission notice.
Key Similarities
- Lack of lawful leadership: The Wolf rule was invalid because the DHS official signing it lacked authority. Here, plaintiffs allege Trump exceeded statutory authority entirely.
- APA violations: Both cases allege failure to engage in notice-and-comment and arbitrary reasoning.
- Economic harm: Courts recognized that fee increases effectively deny access to legal benefits — a theme central to Global Nurse Force.
Richard Herman: “Federal courts have previously invalidated immigration fee hikes that bypassed public rulemaking or relied on unlawful authority.”
Outcome
Judge Jeffrey White in ILRC v. Wolf vacated the entire rule nationwide, halting new fees for green cards, work permits, and naturalization.
That precedent underscores the APA’s procedural guardrails — any agency changing immigration costs must publish, justify, and solicit comments, not implement overnight.
2. Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (2020)
Another key precedent comes from Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. DHS, Case No. 4:20-cv-07331 (N.D. Cal.), where business groups challenged two Trump-era H-1B regulations restricting eligibility and wages.
You can access filings via CourtListener’s case docket.
In December 2020, Judge White struck down both rules for violating the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement, emphasizing that policy urgency does not excuse legal procedure.
Relevance to the $100K Fee Case
- Both suits were filed in the Northern District of California, the same venue now hearing Global Nurse Force.
- The Chamber case confirms that sweeping visa policy shifts cannot be made through “interim final rules” or executive decrees.
- Plaintiffs in Global Nurse Force cite Chamber directly to argue that economic disruptions cannot justify unlawful policymaking.
Attorney Rich Herman: “Like earlier H-1B cases, the Global Nurse Force lawsuit argues that presidential proclamations cannot override Congress’s detailed visa framework.”
3. DHS Fee Rule and Major Questions Doctrine
Beyond the APA, Global Nurse Force draws on the Major Questions Doctrine, recently reinforced in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). Under this doctrine, courts require “clear congressional authorization” before agencies undertake actions of vast economic and political significance.
The complaint notes that a $100,000 per-petition exaction qualifies as a “major question” because it reshapes the entire employment-based visa market.
“Congress did not hide in an obscure provision of the INA a sweeping power to impose six-figure fees on lawful visa programs,” the complaint asserts.
This doctrine adds constitutional weight to the statutory claims — suggesting the fee could be void even if the INA were ambiguous.
4. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and §212(f) Limits
The administration’s defense leans on INA §212(f), the same provision used in Trump v. Hawaii (the travel-ban case). While the Supreme Court upheld that ban, lower courts have since narrowed §212(f)’s reach.
For instance, in Doe v. Trump (D. Or. 2020), a district court enjoined a proclamation requiring immigrants to prove health-insurance coverage, holding that §212(f) cannot be used to rewrite visa eligibility.
Global Nurse Force plaintiffs cite these cases to argue that Trump’s fee crosses from exclusionary entry control into legislative taxation, violating separation of powers.
5. Pattern of Judicial Pushback
Across administrations, courts have sent a consistent message:
- Executive authority has limits.
- Fees function as law, not discretion.
- Procedural shortcuts invite vacatur.
The Northern District of California has become a jurisdictional hub for these cases because of its APA expertise and its inclusion in the Ninth Circuit, which historically constrains immigration overreach.
6. Lessons from Past Cases
|
Case |
Year |
Basis of Challenge |
Outcome |
| ILRC v. Wolf | 2020 | APA; unlawful delegation | Rule vacated |
| Chamber v. DHS | 2020 | APA; lack of notice | Rule vacated |
| Doe v. Trump | 2020 | §212(f) abuse | Injunction issued |
| Global Nurse Force v. Trump | 2025 | APA; §212(f); taxation; equal protection | Pending (N.D. Cal.) |
Immigration Attorney Richard T. Herman: “Every major immigration fee or proclamation bypassing Congress has faced swift judicial scrutiny — and most have been blocked.”
Why These Precedents Matter
When Judge Jon Tigar reviews the Global Nurse Force claims, he will likely weigh these precedents:
- Did the President exceed delegated authority?
- Was the proclamation subject to APA procedures?
- Does the fee violate Congress’s exclusive fiscal power?
If the court follows the reasoning in ILRC v. Wolf and Chamber v. DHS, the $100,000 H-1B fee could be vacated nationwide, reaffirming that immigration fees must be created through lawful, transparent rulemaking.
What H-1B Employers and Workers Should Do Now
Immigration Law Expert Richard T. Herman: “Employers and workers should prepare dual strategies — one for continued enforcement, and one for suspension — while monitoring official government updates. The H-1B visa program plays a crucial role in attracting highly skilled professionals and qualified foreign talent, such as doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, and researchers, to the U.S. workforce to address urgent needs in the economy and public services.”
1. Monitor Official Government Updates
Stay current only through primary federal sources, not news summaries.
Bookmark and check daily:
- USCIS H-1B Specialty Occupations page– for fee implementation and filing guidance
- Federal Register – for proclamations, fee rules, and withdrawal notices
- Department of Labor H-1B Program – for LCA and wage requirements
- DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation – for litigation summaries and court filings
These are the only official channels for lawful updates or policy instructions.
2. Maintain Two Parallel Strategies
Because the Northern District of California may either enjoin or allow the $100K fee:
- If the fee is paused: File petitions under the existing statutory fee structure (around $9,000 total). Reference the injunction order in your cover letter to USCIS.
- If enforcement proceeds: Reassess filing volume, budget, and timing. Consider prioritizing critical H-1B extensions and cap-exempt filings while delaying discretionary ones.
Herman Legal Group, LLC: “If a federal injunction issues, H-1B petitions can proceed under the current fee schedule until further notice.”
3. Compliance Steps for Employers
To remain compliant while litigation continues:
- Update internal cost models to reflect both fee scenarios.
- Amend job offers and contracts to clarify who bears government filing fees under each outcome.
- Ensure LCA compliance using official DOL guidance and prevailing wage data.
- Prepare full documentation of specialty occupation duties, degree requirements, and end-client letters for potential FDNS site visits.
Refer to the Department of Labor’s LCA guidance and USCIS H-1B Policy Manual for technical compliance standards.
4. Health-Care, Education, and Nonprofit Employers
If you are a cap-exempt entity — hospital, university, research lab, religious organization, or health care providers — document irreparable harm (e.g., patient care or program disruption) to support expedited filings or inclusion in any injunction coverage. Use data that aligns with Department of Labor workforce shortage designations.
5. Worker Guidance
For individual H-1B employees:
- File timely extensions and amendments to preserve lawful status.
- Include proof of ongoing employment (pay stubs, offer letters) and LCA postings.
- Review USCIS travel and status maintenance guidance before international travel.
- If the fee is upheld, consult counsel on payment timing and receipt documentation.
6. Consider Short-Term Alternatives
If your petition cannot proceed under the $100K fee, consider lawful alternatives where available:
|
Visa Type |
Eligibility |
Official Source |
| O-1 (extraordinary ability) | Individuals with nationally or internationally recognized achievement | USCIS O-1 Guidance |
| TN (USMCA) | Canadian or Mexican nationals in listed professions | USCIS TN Overview |
| E-3 (Australia) | Australian nationals in specialty occupations | USCIS E-3 Visa Page |
“Qualified professionals from Canada, Mexico, or Australia may use TN or E-3 visas as temporary workarounds while the H-1B fee case is pending.”
7. Documentation and Recordkeeping
Maintain copies of:
- Every USCIS Form I-129 and receipt
- LCAs filed with the Department of Labor
- Any correspondence referencing the $100K fee
- Payment confirmations or evidence of non-collection under court order
USCIS requires employers to retain H-1B records for one year beyond employment termination, per 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E).
8. When to Seek Legal Counsel
Consult an immigration attorney if:
- You receive a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny referencing the $100K fee
- You must decide whether to pay under protest
- You operate across multiple jurisdictions with differing injunction coverage
Attorneys can confirm status, preserve deadlines, and assist in compliance with USCIS, DOL, and DOJ requirements.
9. Authoritative Resource Summary
|
Category |
Agency |
Official Link |
| H-1B Visa Overview | USCIS | uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b |
| LCA & Wage Guidance | DOL | dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b |
| Rule & Proclamation Texts | Federal Register | federalregister.gov |
| Litigation Status | DOJ | justice.gov/civil/office-immigration-litigation |
| Alternate Visas (O-1, TN, E-3) | USCIS | uscis.gov |
Only USCIS, DOL, Federal Register, and DOJ sources provide authoritative updates on the $100K H-1B fee and related litigation.
FAQs: Global Nurse Force Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee
What is the Global Nurse Force lawsuit about?The Global Nurse Force lawsuit challenges President Donald Trump’s September 19, 2025 Proclamation that imposed a $100,000 nonrefundable fee for H-1B visa petitions (commonly referred to as the 100,000 fee for H-1B or Trump’s 100,000 fee), including extensions. The plaintiffs argue that this new charge is illegal, unconstitutional, and enacted without congressional approval or public rulemaking.
When and where was the lawsuit filed?The lawsuit, titled Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, et al., was filed on October 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). It is docketed as Case No. 3:25-cv-08454.
Who are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit?The plaintiffs include Global Nurse Force, UAW Local 4811, the SEIU Committee of Interns and Residents, the American Association of University Professors, Global Village Academy Collaborative, religious organizations, and individual H-1B visa holders. Together, they represent healthcare, education, and nonprofit employers directly affected by the $100,000 fee for H-1B petitions.
Who are the defendants?The defendants are President Donald J. Trump, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph B. Edlow, Department of State Secretary Marco Rubio, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott. They are sued in their official capacities for enforcing President Donald Trump’s 100,000 fee for H-1B visas.
Why did the plaintiffs file the lawsuit?The plaintiffs claim that the $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, imposed by President Donald Trump’s executive action, exceeds presidential authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and contradicts the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). They argue that the fee functions as a prohibitive tax, not a regulatory charge, and will block access to skilled immigrant workers across multiple industries.
What are the main legal arguments against the $100,000 H-1B fee?The lawsuit presents five core legal arguments:
- Ultra vires (beyond authority) — The President cannot impose visa fees without Congress.
- Separation of Powers — Only Congress can levy taxes or fees of this scale.
- APA Violations — Agencies implemented the policy without required notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Conflict with the INA — Congress already set H-1B fee structures under 8 U.S.C. § 1356(m).
- Constitutional claims — The policy discriminates against foreign workers and employers, violating due process and equal protection.
What specific statutory sections are cited in the complaint?The plaintiffs argue that INA § 212(f) and § 215(a) — often invoked in President Donald Trump’s immigration proclamations — do not authorize financial exactions like the 100,000 fee for H-1B. They also cite 8 U.S.C. § 1356(m), which limits DHS fee-setting power to cost recovery, not revenue generation. Critics of the H-1B visa program argue it replaces American workers with cheaper labor.
How much does the new H-1B fee increase cost employers?Under President Donald Trump’s Proclamation, employers must now pay a $100,000 fee for H-1B petitions, on top of existing filing fees (typically under $10,000 total). This represents an increase of more than 1,000%, effectively pricing out most small and mid-sized businesses.
What industries are most affected by the $100,000 fee?While tech companies are impacted, the most significant harm falls on healthcare, education, research, and religious organizations. These sectors rely on H-1B professionals like nurses, teachers, scientists, and clergy — many of whom work in underserved areas.
What does the lawsuit say about harm to healthcare systems?The complaint details that hospitals and medical employers will be forced to cancel job offers, worsening staff shortages in critical care and rural facilities. Global Nurse Force, for example, reports that the 100,000 fee for H-1B will “immediately prevent the hiring of hundreds of nurses needed to address patient safety.” Critics claim the H-1B program allows employers to pay lower wages than U.S. workers.
What does the lawsuit say about harm to schools and universities?Educational plaintiffs — including UAW Local 4811 and Global Village Academy — warn that the fee for H-1B will block access to international teachers and researchers, undermining STEM education, research grants, and multilingual learning programs.
What role does religion play in the case?Several religious organizations, such as the Society of the Divine Word, joined the suit because they rely on international clergy. They claim the fee makes religious sponsorship impossible, infringing on faith-based missions that depend on foreign workers.
What relief is the lawsuit seeking?The plaintiffs seek:
- A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction to pause enforcement of Trump’s 100,000 fee for H-1B visas
- A Declaratory Judgment that President Donald Trump’s Proclamation is unlawful and unconstitutional
- A Permanent Injunction blocking any future imposition of the $100,000 charge
What is the current status of the case?As of October 6, 2025, the lawsuit is pending in the Northern District of California. The case has been assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar, and plaintiffs have requested emergency relief to halt implementation before upcoming filing deadlines.
Has the court scheduled a hearing?Not yet. The court is expected to hold a hearing on the TRO request in early October 2025. The schedule will be posted once available through the Northern District of California docket and advocacy organizations monitoring the case.
What happens if the TRO is granted?If the court grants the TRO or a preliminary injunction, USCIS and the State Department will be barred from collecting or enforcing Trump’s 100,000 fee for H-1B visas while litigation proceeds.
What happens if the fee remains in effect?If no injunction is issued, employers will have to pay the $100,000 fee for H-1B petitions immediately. Many organizations say they would suspend sponsorships, withdraw job offers, or relocate operations abroad to avoid the cost.
Is this the only lawsuit challenging Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee?Yes. As of October 2025, the Global Nurse Force case is the only confirmed federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s Proclamation and the 100,000 fee for H-1B visas. The $100,000 fee is said to potentially invite corruption and is labeled illegal by the plaintiffs.
Why was the case filed in California instead of D.C.?Although many immigration suits are filed in Washington, D.C., this case was brought in California because multiple plaintiffs — including Global Nurse Force, UAW Local 4811, and education nonprofits — are headquartered or employ workers within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
Who is representing the plaintiffs?The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, Justice Action Center, and American Immigration Council. These organizations have previously led APA and INA litigation challenging executive overreach in immigration policy.
What are the government’s main defenses?The Department of Justice (DOJ) contends the President acted under INA § 214(c) and § 212(f) to protect U.S. labor interests. The government claims the fee for H-1B serves a national economic purpose, is temporary, and falls within presidential discretion.
How does this case compare to past immigration fee lawsuits?The Global Nurse Force suit mirrors earlier litigation such as Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf (2020), where courts struck down unlawful USCIS fee hikes. Like that case, plaintiffs here argue the rule was imposed without proper rulemaking and exceeds statutory limits.
Could the case reach the Supreme Court?Yes. If the district court or Ninth Circuit issues conflicting rulings, the case could be appealed to the Supreme Court — especially given its constitutional and separation-of-powers implications.
What broader implications does this lawsuit have?The outcome could determine whether a President can unilaterally impose major immigration fees like Trump’s 100,000 fee for H-1B visas without Congress. It may also influence future visa cost structures, executive powers, and judicial oversight of economic nationalism in immigration policy.
What should employers and H-1B workers do while the case is pending?Employers should:
- Monitor updates from USCIS and legal advocacy groups
- Consult experienced immigration counsel before filing
- Consider alternative visa categories (O-1, TN, or EB routes) if budget constraints apply
H-1B workers should:
- Maintain valid status
- Avoid overpaying unauthorized “processing surcharges”
- Track litigation developments before pursuing extensions
What could happen next in the case?Possible outcomes include:
- A nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s 100,000 fee for H-1B visas
- A limited injunction applying to nonprofits or schools
- Denial of emergency relief, followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit
- A final summary judgment clarifying limits on executive power
Why is this case significant for immigration law?This lawsuit could set a precedent defining the boundaries of presidential authority in setting immigration costs. A victory for plaintiffs would reaffirm that immigration fees must be tied to statutory authority and public accountability, not imposed by decree.
What is the likely timeline for resolution?The TRO decision is expected within weeks, followed by briefing on a preliminary injunction later in 2025. A final ruling could come in early 2026, though appeals might extend into 2027 if the Supreme Court grants review.
Need Clarity About the $100,000 H-1B Fee or the Global Nurse Force Lawsuit? Talk to a Trusted Immigration Expert
The new $100,000 H-1B filing fee has created confusion, fear, and financial uncertainty for employers, international professionals, and institutions that rely on global talent. Whether you’re an employer wondering if you must pay, a worker facing canceled sponsorship, or a university or hospital unsure how this rule applies, you need clear, reliable legal guidance—not speculation.
This fee represents one of the most sweeping and controversial policy shifts in U.S. employment-based immigration history. And while the Global Nurse Force v. Trump lawsuit challenges its legality, you can’t afford to wait on court outcomes before protecting your status, your workforce, or your compliance strategy.
That’s where Attorney Richard T. Herman comes in. With over 30 years of experience in complex immigration law, Richard Herman is not just an attorney—he’s a national voice for immigrant inclusion and economic empowerment. He is the co-author of Immigrant, Inc., a groundbreaking book celebrating how immigrants drive American innovation, job growth, and community revitalization.
Richard has helped thousands of employers, entrepreneurs, and skilled professionals navigate sudden immigration policy changes, from visa suspensions to fee overhauls and compliance audits. His firm, Herman Legal Group, is known across the United States for its strategic, compassionate, and multilingual support for H-1B workers and the organizations that employ them.
Snippet callout: “If you’re confused about Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee or how the Global Nurse Force lawsuit affects you, talk to an attorney with three decades of experience in federal immigration law.”
Why Consult Richard T. Herman Now
- Interpret the current law: Understand what the $100K fee means for pending or future H-1B petitions.
- Assess your risk: Learn how the lawsuit may delay, suspend, or reshape enforcement.
- Protect your filings: Avoid rejection or revocation due to incomplete payments or misapplied rules.
- Explore alternatives: Identify lower-cost or exempt visa categories (O-1, TN, J-1, or EB-2 NIW).
- Act before deadlines: Timing is critical; get real answers before new USCIS guidance takes effect.
Book a Confidential Consultation Today
You don’t need to navigate this alone. Attorney Richard T. Herman and his team at the Herman Legal Group are available for consultations nationwide and globally, via Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp, or in-person appointments.
Visit LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation to schedule your one-on-one consultation today. You’ll gain peace of mind, strategic options, and personalized guidance grounded in 30+ years of success.
Richard T. Herman, Esq.: “Knowledge is power—but experience wins cases. Get answers from the immigration lawyer trusted by employers and professionals worldwide.”
Resource Reference Addendum: Official and Legal Sources
1. Federal Government Resources
- Federal Register (Proclamation of September 19, 2025) — The official presidential proclamation establishing the $100,000 H-1B fee is available through the Federal Register.
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — Guidance on H-1B specialty occupation petitions, filing instructions, and fee structures can be found on the USCIS H-1B Hub.
- Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) — Provides public disclosure data, labor condition applications, and performance metrics relevant to H-1B filings via the DOL OFLC Data Center.
- Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) — Handles the government’s defense in major immigration lawsuits, accessible through the DOJ OIL homepage.
- Department of State (DOS) — Visa processing updates and consular procedures are available on the U.S. State Department’s Visa Services page.
2. Court and Case Documents
- Filed Complaint (PDF) — The official 65-page complaint in Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, et al. (No. 3:25-cv-08454, N.D. Cal.) can be accessed on Democracy Forward’s official filing.
- Case Overview and Filings — Ongoing case updates, briefing schedules, and filings are listed on the Democracy Forward case page.
- Advocacy Briefing and Docket Tracking — The Justice Action Center provides legal summaries, procedural updates, and links to court filings.
- Northern District of California Docket Access — Full docket access is available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) for registered users.
3. Legal Advocacy and Professional Organizations
- Democracy Forward — A nonprofit legal organization representing plaintiffs in this case, offering in-depth analysis and filings at democracyforward.org.
- Justice Action Center (JAC) — Advocacy organization co-leading the litigation; case summaries are hosted at justiceactioncenter.org.
- American Immigration Council (AIC) — Provides policy research and litigation support related to H-1B and executive authority; see americanimmigrationcouncil.org.
- American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — Legal practice guidance, case digests, and member alerts on H-1B compliance are available through aila.org.
- National Immigration Project (NIPNLG) — Offers litigation support and amicus resources on constitutional and administrative law claims in immigration contexts at nipnlg.org.
4. Policy Research and Analysis
- Brookings Institution — Research on skilled immigration and economic policy impacts can be found via brookings.edu.
- Cato Institute Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity — Provides analyses on the economic implications of restrictive immigration measures at cato.org.
- National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) — Offers data-driven reports on H-1B visa trends, innovation, and competitiveness through nfap.com.
5. Media and Reporting
- Reuters Immigration Desk — Coverage of the October 3, 2025 filing and subsequent court actions is available at reuters.com.
- Associated Press (AP) — Provides neutral summaries of the complaint and reactions from industry and advocacy groups at apnews.com.
- Bloomberg Law — Tracks major federal litigation developments, including docket alerts and expert commentary, via bloomberglaw.com.
6. Educational and Employer Guidance
- U.S. Department of Education (ED) — Employer and school sponsorship guidelines for international teachers: ed.gov.
- U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) — Resources for medical employers seeking to fill clinical shortages with foreign healthcare professionals: hrsa.gov.
- USCIS Employer Compliance Center — Updated employer responsibilities and site-visit guidance under H-1B programs: uscis.gov/compliance.
7. Litigation Updates and Commentary Channels
- SCOTUSblog — Will track Supreme Court review if certiorari is sought: scotusblog.com.
- Law360 Immigration Section — Provides expert commentary and case summaries for practitioners at law360.com/immigration.
- National Law Review — Analytical overviews of H-1B litigation trends and APA jurisprudence are published at natlawreview.com.
8. Advocacy Contact Points for Stakeholders
- Contact Democracy Forward Legal Team — General inquiries can be directed via democracyforward.org/contact.
- Justice Action Center (Media/Legal) — Stakeholder briefings and press contact form at justiceactioncenter.org/contact.
- AILA Media Relations — Policy updates and amicus participation inquiries at aila.org/contact-us.
