Nineteen U.S. States Challenge Legality of $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee in Federal Court

A coalition comprising nineteen states has initiated a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration. The core of the dispute centers on the legality of imposing a substantial $100,000 fee specifically targeting new H-1B visa petitions for highly skilled workers. This legal challenge was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argue that this recently enacted decree oversteps the executive branch's authority and was implemented without adhering to mandatory administrative law procedures. The proclamation establishing this fee was issued on September 19, 2025, and it took effect just two days later, on September 21, 2025. This swift implementation immediately created significant financial hurdles for employers across the nation.

This new levy represents a staggering increase—up to one hundred times greater than previous processing costs, which historically ranged between $960 and $7,595. Critics warn that such an exorbitant charge threatens to exacerbate existing labor shortages in vital sectors, including healthcare, education, and technology. Oregon Attorney General Dan Reyfield spearheaded the coalition of plaintiffs, highlighting the devastating impact on state institutions. For example, the University of Oregon sponsors over 50 H-1B researchers, and Oregon State University sponsors more than 150 such employees, making this fee potentially ruinous for their operations.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta characterized the executive order as a measure that promises a 'deeply serious crisis.' He pointed out that California's major technology giants—naming Meta, Google, and Apple—are among the most frequent users of the H-1B program. These entities rely heavily on the program to secure specialized talent.

A central pillar of the plaintiffs' case is the assertion that the Trump administration bypassed the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. In response, the Department of Justice is defending the policy, contending that it is shielded from judicial review under the powers granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) concerning the restriction of entry. Vice President J.D. Vance has publicly criticized the H-1B system, claiming it is exploited to import lower-wage labor at the expense of American workers.

It is important to note the scope of the fee’s application. The measure does not apply to current visa holders seeking extensions or to petitions filed before the September 21, 2025, deadline. However, the fee is anticipated to be enforced starting with the H-1B visa lottery scheduled for early 2026. This timing sets the stage for a major confrontation in the upcoming hiring cycle.

Beyond the courtroom battles, the broader political discourse surrounding immigration intensified toward the close of 2025. While the H-1B program has traditionally served as a pathway for attracting top global talent—evidenced by the fact that in 2023, 73% of the 386,000 visas issued went to Indian nationals—critics maintain that these new regulations undermine the program's foundational purpose. Further tightening of immigration policy was signaled on December 15, 2025, when the Department of State implemented enhanced digital screening requirements.