Overview
The Trump administration didn’t just tighten H‑1B visas. It put a $100,000 toll booth on “new” petitions—and dared employers to pay up. Now twenty states are trying to blow up that toll booth in federal court, calling it an illegal end-run around Congress.
The stakes aren’t only about tech hiring. States say the fee hits the places that can’t just pass costs along—public universities, hospitals, and school systems already scraping through shortages. Underneath it all is the bigger fight: can a president effectively rewrite immigration economics with a proclamation and agency guidance, or does that cross the line into lawmaking and taxation?
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The policy’s political engine—selling the fee as reform and directing agencies to execute it.
DHS runs the pipeline that turns the proclamation into petition processing rules.
USCIS is where the $100,000 policy becomes real paperwork and real denials.
California is driving the legal challenge and the public narrative about service-sector harm.
Massachusetts anchors the states’ case in federal court and emphasizes research/health impacts.
The Chamber positioned the fee as an unlawful, job-killing cost spike for employers.
Democracy Forward helped launch the first broad coalition suit against the fee.
Timeline
-
Twenty states sue: “Congress didn’t authorize this”
LegalCalifornia and Massachusetts lead a 20-state coalition in the District of Massachusetts, challenging the $100,000 fee as exceeding statutory authority and skipping required rulemaking.
-
Congressional researchers summarize the new H‑1B landscape
InvestigationA CRS analysis lays out the proclamation theory, scope clarifications, and policy knock-on effects that are now showing up in court filings.
-
USCIS guidance narrows the blast radius
Rule ChangesNew guidance clarifies which petitions trigger the payment and which do not, signaling partial retreat without abandoning the core policy.
-
Business escalates: U.S. Chamber files its own case
LegalThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce sues in D.C. federal court, arguing the proclamation exceeds presidential authority and breaks the statutory fee framework.
-
First big lawsuit: hospitals, unions, schools sue
LegalA broad coalition files suit in the Northern District of California, arguing the fee is unlawful, unconstitutional, and procedurally defective under the APA.
-
Effective date triggers confusion, travel reshuffles
Rule ChangesThe proclamation’s payment condition begins applying to covered new filings after the effective timestamp, pushing employers toward emergency planning and legal counsel.
-
Trump drops the $100,000 H‑1B bomb
Rule ChangesPresident Trump issues a proclamation restricting entry of certain new H‑1B workers unless a $100,000 payment is made. Employers and institutions scramble to understand scope, exemptions, and mechanics.
Scenarios
Judge freezes the fee nationwide while cases proceed
Discussed by: Plaintiffs’ filings and legal coverage tracking injunction bids (e.g., Reuters; major immigration-law firm alerts)
A court grants a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction after finding likely statutory/APA violations and irreparable harm to hospitals, schools, and universities. The administration appeals, but the practical effect is immediate: the $100,000 condition stops being enforced (or can’t be enforced) while the merits are litigated.
Courts uphold the proclamation theory and the fee survives
Discussed by: Administration arguments previewed in public materials; legal analysts debating broad presidential entry powers
The government persuades courts that the payment is a lawful condition tied to entry restrictions and that agencies can implement it through guidance. If appellate courts accept that framing, employers face a new normal: either pay for overseas hires or retool hiring pipelines toward domestic conversions and cap-exempt strategies.
Administration narrows the fee into a selective lever, not a universal toll
Discussed by: USCIS guidance updates and coverage noting shifting scope and exemptions
Without conceding illegality, DHS/USCIS keeps narrowing categories through guidance and waiver practices—reducing immediate chaos and undercutting some plaintiffs’ urgency arguments. The fee remains on the books but is applied to a narrower slice of cases, turning the policy into a bargaining chip and enforcement tool rather than a blanket hiring stopper.
Congress steps in: codifies limits on fee-setting—or ratifies the fee
Discussed by: CRS analysis and long-running bipartisan H‑1B reform debates referenced by lawmakers
Facing legal uncertainty and employer pressure, Congress could clarify that immigration petition fees must track costs and require notice-and-comment for major changes—or it could explicitly authorize a large surcharge. Either move would reshape the courts’ role by turning a separation-of-powers fight into a straight statutory interpretation question.
Historical Context
Trump’s 2017 travel ban litigation (Trump v. Hawaii)
2017-01 to 2018-06What Happened
Early executive restrictions on entry triggered immediate nationwide injunction fights, rapid policy revisions, and a sprint to the Supreme Court. The legal battle became a referendum on how much deference courts owe a president using entry-power statutes.
Outcome
Short term: Policy morphed through revisions while courts narrowed and tested it.
Long term: The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version, reinforcing broad entry-power deference.
Why It's Relevant
This H‑1B fight uses the same basic playbook: entry authority leveraged to achieve domestic policy goals.
Trump-era restrictions on work visas during 2020 (including H‑1B-related suspensions)
2020-06 to 2021-03What Happened
The administration used presidential proclamations and agency moves to restrict work visas and reshape employment-based immigration. Employers, universities, and advocacy groups sued, arguing over statutory authority and administrative procedure.
Outcome
Short term: Litigation and policy churn produced uncertainty and partial rollbacks.
Long term: Courts and subsequent administrations narrowed or reversed several measures, but the executive-action template endured.
Why It's Relevant
It shows how quickly work-visa policy can turn into whiplash—and why plaintiffs focus on APA process.
Congressional fee-setting for H‑1B (ACWIA and later statutory surcharges)
1998-10 to 2004-12What Happened
Congress imposed and revised H‑1B-related fees and training surcharges through legislation, explicitly linking payments to specific purposes and guardrails.
Outcome
Short term: Employers paid higher statutory fees with clear legislative authorization.
Long term: It cemented the norm that big H‑1B fee changes come from Congress, not improvisation.
Why It's Relevant
It clarifies the core dispute: plaintiffs argue the administration is trying to do legislatively what Congress historically did itself.