Second H-1B Fee Block
Second US Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Controversial $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The earlier Massachusetts court ruling also found that imposing the fee could usurp Congress’s taxing power because the relevant statutes did not delegate that authority to the administration.
2
Judge Gilliam said the agencies had not considered alternatives or the reliance interests of affected parties, making the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the policy was arbitrary and capricious. He characterized the policies as legislative rules subject to notice-and-comment procedures and vacated and remanded them.
3
The lawsuit was brought by a broad coalition that included health-care providers, educational institutions, manufacturers, labor organizations and individual workers; another account notes the plaintiffs included a church, unions, a pastor, a professors’ group and a nurse-staffing company.
4
The California judge denied, without prejudice, a request to certify a class of affected employers, reasoning that class certification did not appear necessary for the court to grant the requested preliminary relief.
A federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, ruling that agencies skipped required legal procedures. US District Court Northern District of California found the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This is the second federal court to halt the fee — a Massachusetts judge had already blocked it on different legal grounds. The ruling bars enforcement until the administration completes proper rulemaking.
The fee hits Indian workers especially hard. About 71% of approved H-1B visas in fiscal 2024 went to Indian nationals. News18 reported that Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled the agencies failed to consider alternatives or how the sudden fee would affect workers and employers who already planned to hire.
Two Courts, Two Different Legal Problems
The Massachusetts judge had already blocked the fee on a different reason: the ruling said the administration overstepped its power. Congress alone has the power to collect taxes or fees, the court found. The Trump administration cannot impose charges without clear congressional permission. Swarajya notes the California ruling adds a second legal basis — the agencies ignored required public comment periods.
Judge Criticized Agency's Hasty Decision-Making
Judge Gilliam said the agencies acted arbitrarily and carelessly. They did not weigh alternatives to the fee. They ignored how the sudden charge would burden workers, hospitals, schools, and manufacturers who depend on H-1B workers. Jurist reported that Gilliam called these policies legislative rules that required public notice-and-comment periods before taking effect.
The judge vacated the fee policy and sent it back to the agencies to do the work correctly. Until they follow proper procedures, the fee cannot be enforced. IJR noted the ruling also blocks an extended version of the fee imposed by the same agencies.
Broad Coalition of Employers and Workers Sued
The lawsuit brought together an unusual alliance against the fee. Hospitals, universities, manufacturers, churches, labor unions, nurses, and a pastor all joined the case. They represented employers and workers harmed by the sudden $100,000 charge. News18 reported that the plaintiffs said the fee would block skilled workers from entering the United States.
The judge rejected a request to approve the case as a class action — a legal step that would have let all affected employers sue together. But the judge found he could still grant the relief the plaintiffs asked for without going through the class certification process.
Separate DHS Fee Still Faces Legal Questions
The Trump administration proposed another fee of $103,000 through the Department of Homeland Security. The California ruling does not directly block that fee. However, the legal arguments used against the $100,000 charge could apply to the DHS proposal as well. Both fees face ongoing legal challenges in federal courts.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
16
Articles
131
Reach
147
A
AnonymousAuthor
