A broad and unusually diverse coalition—comprising labor unions, nonprofit advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, and a healthcare staffing company, among other parties—has initiated a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s recently announced $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. This case, now filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, represents what appears to be the inaugural, large-scale judicial test of the administration’s sweeping proclamation, one that could have lasting implications for immigration policy and economic innovation.
In their legal complaint, submitted on Friday, the plaintiffs assert that former President Donald J. Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to impose the colossal H-1B charge unilaterally, without congressional approval or statutory backing. They describe the imposed fee as not only “extortionate” and “draconian” in both its magnitude and intent but also as a direct obstacle to technological advancement and creative enterprise within the United States. Their argument fundamentally hinges on the principle that the President lacks constitutional power to levy fees, taxes, or other revenue-generating measures, or to determine how such revenues are allocated—a prerogative expressly reserved to Congress under the Constitution’s fundamental framework of separation of powers. As the lawsuit emphasizes, the legislative branch retains the exclusive “power of the purse,” an authority long recognized as central to maintaining democratic balance and fiscal accountability.
The plaintiffs further contend that Trump’s framing of the $100,000 requirement effectively reclassifies the fee as a form of taxation, especially in light of his own public statements suggesting that the funds would be used to offset tax cuts and reduce federal debt. During a press briefing on September 19, Trump explicitly stated that revenue generated from the H-1B surcharge would be redirected to “reduce taxes” and “reduce debt,” reinforcing the plaintiffs’ argument that the executive order functions more as a revenue measure than an administrative fee. In response, the lawsuit—spearheaded by California-based healthcare recruitment firm Global Nurse Force—seeks a declaratory judgment rendering the proclamation unlawful, alongside an injunction preventing federal authorities from enforcing the contested payment.
The H-1B visa system, long regarded as a cornerstone of America’s ability to attract skilled foreign professionals, facilitates the legal entry of highly qualified workers who contribute significantly to the nation’s competitiveness in science, technology, research, and innovation. Traditionally, the technology and research sectors have been the predominant beneficiaries of the H-1B program, employing tens of thousands of engineers, computer scientists, and scholars from around the world. Yet the plaintiffs underscore that industries far beyond Silicon Valley rely heavily on such visa holders, citing manufacturing, healthcare, and higher education as critical sectors that would feel the brunt of the proposed financial barrier. They emphasize that over one-third of all H-1B professionals are employed in non-technology fields, underscoring the program’s broad utility across the U.S. economy. Interestingly, the coalition of plaintiffs notably includes no technology-focused trade groups or representatives, highlighting the unusual cross-sector opposition to the new fee.
The Trump administration defended the measure as a necessary intervention to prevent exploitation of the H-1B system. According to a statement from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, the executive action was fully “lawful” and aimed at curbing practices by employers who allegedly use the visa system to displace American workers and suppress domestic wages. Jackson argued that the $100,000 charge would deter excessive or speculative visa applications—what she described as companies “spamming the system”—while simultaneously ensuring that employers with genuine need for international expertise could still access global talent in an orderly and predictable manner.
The initial announcement of the fee, unveiled nearly two weeks before the lawsuit, sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and other industries reliant on immigrant labor. Confusion and unease spread rapidly as employers scrambled to contact their H-1B employees abroad, urging them to return to the United States immediately for fear that reentry or visa renewals would soon become financially unfeasible. However, as further details emerged, some high-profile voices within the technology community began to express cautious support. Among them was Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who stated in a CNBC interview that immigration remains essential not only to his company’s growth but also to the nation’s long-term prosperity. “Immigration is really important to our company and is really important to our nation’s future,” Huang remarked, signaling a pragmatic, if guarded, acceptance of the administration’s direction.
As of now, the plaintiffs’ legal representatives have declined to issue additional public comments. Nevertheless, the outcome of this case promises to resonate far beyond the courtroom, potentially redefining the contours of executive authority, congressional fiscal oversight, and the economic frameworks that sustain American competitiveness in an era of global talent mobility.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/h1b-visa-lawsuit-trump-administration-sued-2025-10
