States Sue Trump Administration Over H-1B Visa

20 States Sue Trump Administration Over Controversial $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

Highlights

• 20 states file federal lawsuit over new H-1B visa surcharge

• States argue $100K fee violates federal law and due process

• Fee threatens healthcare, education, and tech industries

• Multiple lawsuits challenge legality of executive immigration order

• Preliminary injunction hearing set for December 19, 2025

The Core Facts

A coalition of 20 U.S. states, spearheaded by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed a federal lawsuit on December 12, 2025, to block the Trump administration’s new immigration policy that imposes a $100,000 fee on all new H-1B visa petitions. The fee, announced through executive action in September 2025, was enacted without public notice or stakeholder comment, and applies to all new H-1B applications unless a narrow exemption applies. The states argue that the fee violates federal law, oversteps administrative authority, and poses catastrophic consequences for critical sectors reliant on international talent.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and targets multiple federal agencies including the Departments of Homeland Security, Labor, State, and Justice. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the fee’s enforcement nationwide.

Background on Individuals

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a former state assemblymember and current Democratic legal leader, is known for aggressively litigating federal actions viewed as unconstitutional or administratively overreaching. The Trump administration officials named in the suit include senior immigration and labor policy figures aligned with efforts to reduce legal immigration and prioritize domestic hiring.

The executive order introducing the fee was issued by former President Donald Trump in September 2025 after his reelection. Trump’s immigration agenda has long targeted the H-1B program, which he claims is misused by employers to undercut U.S. wages. The new fee is the administration’s most dramatic policy action to date aimed at curbing use of the visa.

Political Context

The policy has sparked renewed clashes between states and the federal government. Democratic attorneys general, often aligned with labor and immigrant advocacy groups, argue that the Trump administration is using executive power to circumvent Congress on fiscal matters. Republicans have defended the measure as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a broken immigration system.

This case also reflects broader tensions over the role of states in immigration enforcement and rulemaking. Many of the suing states host large numbers of H-1B visa holders, particularly in healthcare, higher education, and the technology sector. These states argue that the fee will damage their economies and obstruct their ability to provide essential services.

Legal Context

The states claim the fee violates several legal principles:

1. Statutory Overreach: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, agencies cannot unilaterally impose fees that are not tied to actual administrative costs or authorized by Congress.

2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The fee was implemented without undergoing the required notice and comment period. This renders the policy vulnerable to being struck down as arbitrary and capricious.

3. Separation of Powers: The Constitution reserves revenue-raising powers to Congress. By setting a mandatory fee without legislative approval, the administration is accused of violating constitutional boundaries.

4. Due Process Concerns: The abrupt implementation and financial burden imposed on employers and visa applicants are argued to violate procedural due process protections.

Legal scholars have likened this policy to previous immigration rule changes struck down by courts for failing to meet APA standards. The fee’s extraordinary size—more than ten times the prior maximum cost for H-1B filing—further weakens its legal footing.

Implications

The fee’s implementation threatens to reshape access to the H-1B visa program, which provides temporary employment visas to skilled foreign workers in fields such as medicine, engineering, teaching, and scientific research. Previously, total filing costs ranged from about $960 to $7,600, depending on the employer and filing category.

State attorneys general argue the new fee will disproportionately harm sectors facing acute labor shortages. These include:

• Healthcare: Many hospitals rely on H-1B workers for nursing and physician roles, especially in underserved areas.

• Higher Education: Universities depend on H-1B visas to hire international faculty and researchers.

• Technology: Companies from startups to major firms use the program to bring in talent when domestic supply is insufficient.

• K-12 Education: Public schools in rural and urban districts have used the visa to fill teaching vacancies.

Beyond labor market concerns, the case raises questions about whether an administration can unilaterally impose punitive financial barriers to legal immigration without congressional approval.

What’s Next

Several legal proceedings will run in parallel. The Chamber of Commerce and a group of private plaintiffs filed earlier lawsuits, arguing similar claims against the $100,000 fee. A key preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for December 19, 2025. If granted, the fee could be temporarily halted while litigation continues.

Federal courts could choose to consolidate the lawsuits or issue separate rulings. Legal experts expect the case could reach the appellate courts by early 2026, with the Supreme Court possibly reviewing the matter if conflicting rulings emerge.

In the meantime, the fee remains in effect for any H-1B application filed after September 21, 2025, unless an applicant qualifies for limited national-interest or humanitarian exemptions.

Conclusion

This lawsuit may become a pivotal moment in U.S. immigration law, testing the limits of executive authority over legal migration and regulatory powers. If the states succeed, it will signal that even within immigration, a traditionally executive-dominated area, there are firm legal boundaries. If the Trump administration prevails, it may open the door for further fee-based deterrence strategies affecting various visa categories.

The outcome will significantly impact how the federal government balances national immigration goals with economic demands and state-level workforce needs. As multiple courts weigh the arguments, the case will be closely watched for its potential to redefine the future of high-skilled immigration in the United States.