Washington, D.C. – A coalition of U.S. states led by California and Massachusetts are filing a sweeping federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s controversial policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The action marks the most important judicial confrontation to date over the administration’s wider strategy of tightening immigration rules for foreign workers and reflects surging political and legal resistance from state governments, business groups, and advocacy organizations.

The suit was filed on Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the attorneys general of 19 states, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Collectively, the states argue the Trump rule exceeds the President’s authority, infringes upon federal law, and risks driving labor shortages in such essential industries as healthcare, education, technology, and research.

According to the states’ complaint, the H-1B visa program Congress enacted in 1990 allows employers to hire skilled foreign employees for “specialty occupations” requiring the minimum of a bachelor’s degree, such as engineers, scientists, researchers, teachers, and medical professionals. The program is highly utilized in industries having severe national shortages of qualified workers, mainly in technology and health fields.

This $100,000 fee is required for any such H-1B visa petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, 2025, according to a proclamation entitled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers by President Donald Trump on Sept. 19, 2025. Consigned to sharply raise the cost of hiring foreign nationals through consular processing, the proclamation slaps a six-figure surcharge on new H-1B visas.

States Argue Fee Violates Federal Law

That fee vastly exceeds the authority given to the executive branch under federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act, the lawsuit contends. Federal law allows agencies like DHS to collect fees that recover the administrative cost of a visa application; what they do not allow is to collect an exorbitant fee as a way to generate revenue or as a means of discouraging participation in a program.

The attorneys general argue in their filings that the Trump policy circumvents statutory limits and sidesteps firmly established rulemaking requirements, such as mandatory notice and public comment provisions. These procedural steps are intended to maintain transparency and accountability when federal agencies put in place rules affecting businesses, workers, and the broader economy.

“Oregon’s colleges, universities and research institutions rely on skilled international workers to keep labs running, courses on track and innovation moving forward,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield in the news release announcing the state’s participation in the lawsuit. “This enormous fee would make it nearly impossible for those institutions to hire the experts they need and it goes far beyond what Congress ever intended.”

Oregon Department of Justice

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the multi-state legal effort, echoed these concerns, underscoring that the fee runs afoul of federal law by exacting a financial penalty that bears no relation to any administrative cost and is unsupported by congressional authorization. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the H-1B visa program is crucial for the state’s technology and healthcare sectors.

Potential Impact Across Sectors

The broad potential impacts of the fee on public and private employers dependent upon H-1B workers to fill positions that cannot easily be staffed with domestic labor are detailed in the states’ lawsuit. For instance, hospitals and health systems have long depended on foreigntrained physicians, nurses, and specialists to address critical shortages, especially in rural and underserved areas. Schools and universities would face significant increases in their costs from frequent employment of foreign educators and researchers, which could impair academic programs and research projects.

The complaint cites national shortages in key occupations that include, but are not limited to, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, healthcare, and education. Many of these occupations have comprised some of the largest categories of H-1B visa holders in recent years, with many thousands of professionals entering the U.S. each year under the program. Those who oppose the fee say it may well discourage employers from hiring foreign talent at all, placing further stress on industries already struggling to recruit qualified personnel.

Legal and Immigration Expert Arguments

The legal legitimacy and practical implications of the fee have been extensively denounced by scholars in the field of law and immigration lawyers alike. Industry groups, such as the United States Chamber of Commerce, which represents about 300,000 businesses, have filed different lawsuits that challenge the legality of the policy and how it may make the H-1B program too expensive for employers to continue. In October 2025, the Chamber of Commerce made its filing based on the actions of the president, which imposed an unlawful surcharge, and maintains that Congress has retained authority to set such fiscal terms.

A coalition of labor unions, employers, and religious organizations filed a different federal suit in San Francisco to prevent the fee from taking effect. They argued that the Trump administration did not follow the proper rule-making procedures and that the fee would disproportionately be seen to harm nonprofits, healthcare providers, and educational institutions.

Position and Defense by the Administration

The White House and DHS have defended the H-1B fee as a lawful effort to reform the visa program and protect American workers from perceived abuses. Officials say the policy deters employers from “gaming” the system by hiring cheaper foreign labor, and that the fee can help ensure opportunities go first to U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

A White House spokesperson, in response to earlier legal challenges, said the fee is “lawful and part of the broader plan to reform the H-1B program” to prevent abuses that drive down wages and undermine job opportunities for domestic workers. The administration has framed the fee as part of a broader legislative and policy agenda to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws and prioritize American labor interests.

Yet critics of the rule note that only Congress has constitutional authority to include revenue-raising measures, and the legislative branch had for a purpose placed restrictions on fees for visa-processing services and related benefits to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on employers and employees alike.

Political and Economic Stakes

The dispute over the H-1B fee parallels national debates over immigration, labor markets, and economic competitiveness. Proponents argue that the policy of the Trump administration will prevent abuses of the H-1B system and ensure American workers get the first availabilities of job openings. They argue that requiring employers to pay higher fees for foreign hires would provide incentives for them to invest in domestic talent development.

Opponents respond that the H-1B visa program fills gaps in industries where the supply of qualified professionals is short. They argue that piling onerous fees on employers will not increase the U.S. workforce but hinder businesses, reduce innovation, and erode the capacity of hospitals, universities, and technology firms to recruit globally. Most indicate that the current labor shortages in the health sector and education have shown that the H-1B program has a vital role to play in sustaining these critical services.

But the tech industry has come out swinging against the fee. The likes of Silicon Valley and other major technology centers have been reliant on skilled foreign workers in specialist positions, with companies including major firms publicly warning that hiking the cost of H-1B visas into six figures could cause recruitment and project timelines to go awry.

Legal Questions and Broader Landscape of Litigation

But the class-action case in Massachusetts federal court is not the only legal front challenging the policy. Numerous lawsuits are now proceeding in various jurisdictions, complaining similarly that the fee outstrips executive authority and infringes rulemaking procedures.

The states’ lawsuit stands out for the number of participants – state governments – and its broad assertions that the policy will cause irreparable harm to public services across multiple sectors. Framing the fee as unlawful and burdensome under both statutory immigration law and constitutional principles, the states seek an injunction preventing the fee’s implementation.

Early legal analyses indicate that courts may focus on whether the White House had statutory authority to impose this revenue-generating fee without explicit congressional authorization, and if the DHS followed appropriate procedural steps under the APA.

National and International Reactions The policy has attracted reactions both in the United States and at the international front, more so from countries whose citizens the H-1B program largely represents. India has expressed its concern that the country traditionally accounts for the lion’s share of the H-1B visa recipients, given that the families of the beneficiaries will be affected and also bear relevance on bilateral economic ties as it either slows down or disrupts the mobility of workers and remittances. Immigration advocacy groups have amplified the states’ legal arguments by emphasizing the humanitarian and economic impact of the fee, showcasing how increasing barriers to foreign talent would slow down innovation, reduce global competitiveness, and constrain sectors with already fraught workforce shortages.

Next Steps in the Litigation Process

The case will continue over the next several months with preliminary motions before the federal court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs-states-are asking for immediate injunctive relief to stop enforcement of the fee. Legal experts predict that both sides will be filing briefs on motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and the court’s ruling may set the stage for how legal challenges to the executive’s actions on immigration policy will be decided in the future. With several lawsuits now filed, federal judges around the country may soon weigh in on whether the Trump administration acted within its legal authority. The results could have lasting consequences for executive discretion in immigration policymaking and for the businesses and institutions dependent on foreign skilled workers.