California, 19 States Sue to Block Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, Calling It Unlawful and Harmful to Workforce

A coalition led by California and joined by 19 other U.S. states has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, escalating a legal battle over executive authority, immigration policy, and the future of the American skilled workforce.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in a federal court in Boston and represents the latest and most expansive legal challenge to the fee, which was announced by the Trump administration in September and took effect for new applicants shortly thereafter.

---

What the States Are Challenging

Under current rules, employers typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 in government fees to sponsor an H-1B worker. The new policy multiplies that cost by up to fifty times, effectively barring many employers from hiring foreign professionals.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the administration lacks the legal authority to impose such a charge. In a statement released by his office, Bonta argued that federal immigration law allows agencies to collect only those fees necessary to administer visa programs—not to generate revenue or serve as a deterrent.

“The $100,000 fee bears no relationship to the actual cost of processing an H-1B petition,” the filing states, adding that the U.S. Constitution reserves the power to impose revenue-raising measures exclusively to Congress.

---

Economic and Workforce Impact

The H-1B visa program enables U.S. employers to recruit foreign professionals in specialized fields such as technology, engineering, healthcare, and education. States backing the lawsuit say the fee would intensify labor shortages, particularly in sectors already struggling to recruit qualified workers domestically.

California, home to Silicon Valley and a large share of the U.S. technology industry, is expected to be among the hardest hit. Bonta warned that hospitals, universities, and public institutions could be forced to cut back services if they lose access to skilled talent.

“This policy would impose severe and unnecessary financial burdens on providers of essential services,” Bonta said, calling the move counterproductive to economic growth and innovation.

---

States and Stakeholders Involved

In addition to California, the lawsuit is backed by states including New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington, among others.

The legal action adds to a growing list of challenges. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, has already filed a separate lawsuit, joined by a coalition of labor unions, employers, and religious organizations. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to hear arguments in that case next week.

---

Administration’s Defense

The White House has defended the policy as a lawful exercise of presidential authority under federal immigration statutes. Administration officials argue that the fee will deter misuse of the H-1B program and protect American workers.

Critics of employment-based visas have long contended that companies use H-1B workers to undercut wages and replace U.S. employees. The Trump administration echoed those concerns, framing the fee as a safeguard against abuse.

Under the executive order, new H-1B visa holders are barred from entering the U.S. unless the sponsoring employer pays the $100,000 fee. The administration says the policy does not apply to existing visa holders or applications submitted before September 21.

---

Legal Questions at the Core

At the heart of the dispute is whether the president can unilaterally impose a fee of this magnitude. The states argue that while presidents may restrict entry on national interest grounds, they cannot create de facto taxes or fees disconnected from administrative costs.

Legal analysts note that the outcome could have broader implications for executive power over immigration—and for how future administrations reshape visa programs without congressional approval.

---

What Happens Next

The Boston case is expected to proceed alongside similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions, raising the possibility of conflicting rulings. If courts issue an injunction, the fee could be temporarily suspended while the litigation unfolds.

For now, employers, universities, and foreign professionals are left in limbo, as the future of one of the U.S. economy’s most critical talent pipelines hangs on the outcome of the courts.