Industry groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging an administration rule that would impose as much as a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B sponsorships. Plaintiffs argue the rule is unlawful and arbitrary; the government says the fee is part of broader efforts to reform high-skilled immigration.
Industry groups and employers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Trump administration rule that would impose a surcharge of up to $100,000 on some H‑1B visa petitions, arguing the regulation exceeds the government’s authority, was promulgated without proper notice and comment, and will cause economic harm to U.S. businesses and higher‑education institutions.
The rule—announced by administration officials as part of a package intended to overhaul and tighten the H‑1B nonimmigrant program—would dramatically increase fees for certain categories of H‑1B petitioners. Under the terms described by the administration, employers that meet specific thresholds of H‑1B or L‑1 employment would face an additional fee that, in some instances, could reach $100,000 for a single petition. The stated rationale from officials was to discourage heavy employer reliance on temporary foreign workers and to redirect revenues to workforce training and enforcement.
The proposal represents a departure from the standard H‑1B fee structure regulated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), which historically has included filing fees, a training fee (generally $1,500 for firms with more than 25 employees and $750 for smaller firms), fraud prevention and detection fees, and optional premium processing fees. The new surcharge would target employers with a high proportion of nonimmigrant workers and is designed as a blunt economic disincentive.
The complaint—filed in federal court by a coalition of employers and trade groups—contends that the rule is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), violates statutory limits on agency authority, and was issued without adequate justification and public notice. The suit seeks to vacate and set aside the regulation and to enjoin the government from collecting the fee.
In their filing, plaintiffs argue that the surcharge:
“The agency has upended decades of settled practice without adequate statutory authority or explanation,†the complaint states, characterizing the fee as a punitive measure that will reshape labor markets and university research relationships.
Officials implementing the rule framed it as part of a broader effort to curb abuse in the H‑1B program, protect American workers and refocus the program on employers that pay prevailing wages and invest in U.S. hiring and training. Department statements accompanying the rule emphasized enforcement and labor protections, and proposed redirecting fee proceeds to workforce training programs.
In prior rulemaking actions and public statements, administration officials argued that some employers had come to view the H‑1B program as a low‑cost labor supply rather than a targeted instrument to fill genuine shortages of highly skilled workers. The fee package was designed to change employer incentives, the officials said.
Established in 1990, the H‑1B program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign nationals in specialty occupations—generally positions that require a bachelor’s degree or higher. Annual numerical caps apply to new H‑1B petitions filed for many applicants: the regular cap is 65,000, with an additional 20,000 exemptions for holders of U.S. advanced degrees. Certain employers—nonprofit research institutions and universities, for example—are exempt from the annual numerical cap.
The H‑1B application process generally involves several fees: the base filing fee paid to USCIS, a training fee intended to fund U.S. worker training programs, a fraud prevention fee, and optional premium processing fees. Fee amounts have been set and adjusted by statute and agency rulemaking over time. For background on the program generally, USCIS maintains an overview on its website: USCIS H‑1B program.
Researchers and policymakers debate the economic effects of H‑1B visas. Some studies find that skilled immigration can boost innovation, increase patenting and raise productivity in certain industries, while others highlight potential wage effects for particular groups of native workers in specific markets.
Notable studies include work by economists showing that H‑1B workers contribute to firm-level innovation and can complement U.S. workers’ skills; for example, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper and analysis at institutions such as Brookings have examined H‑1B impacts on innovation and labor markets. See: NBER and Brookings.
Employment and wage data from the Department of Labor provide a baseline for understanding the scale of the program and the occupational and geographic distribution of H‑1B users: DOL foreign labor.
In the complaint, plaintiffs advance several legal theories that are typical in challenges to federal regulations:
“The final rule fundamentally alters a fee regime that Congress and the agencies have shaped over many years, but it does so without a defensible legal or factual foundation,†one paragraph of the filing reads. The suit also quantifies damages in terms of expected increased costs and lost research and hiring opportunities, and asks the court to suspend collection while litigation proceeds.
The government’s defense, as stated in its rulemaking record and public commentary, centers on the agencies’ broad discretion to administer the immigration system, including setting fees to finance program administration and to effectuate statutory objectives. Officials have argued that the rule fits within the agencies’ existing fee and enforcement powers and that the agencies undertook required notice and comment.
In addition, the government has emphasized policy goals: deterring misuse of the H‑1B program, protecting U.S. workers, defending wage standards, and generating funds to support enforcement and workforce training initiatives. Agency defenders contend the record contains sufficient explanation and economic analysis to justify the measure.
Legal experts, employers and economists disagree about the practical consequences of the surcharge. Some of the anticipated effects include:
Analysts also note potential loopholes and compliance challenges. Employers may alter corporate structures or employment patterns to avoid the surcharge thresholds, provoking new enforcement challenges for the agencies.
The litigation has drawn commentary from business groups, academic institutions and immigration advocates. Trade associations and affected employers issued public statements characterizing the rule as a financial burden that would hamper hiring and research, while labor advocates and some policy experts welcomed the administration’s stated intent to raise labor standards.
“This rule will have the perverse effect of penalizing employers who hire competitively in the global marketplace and support high‑skilled research and innovation,†plaintiffs’ counsel said in a public statement accompanying the filing. “It is a departure from the statutory scheme and should be set aside.â€
At the same time, critics of the status quo in H‑1B administration say higher fees could be a useful lever to shift employer behavior and to fund workforce development. A labor policy analyst commenting on the broader package framed it as a tool to ensure the H‑1B program serves its original purpose of filling genuine shortages rather than serving as a mechanism for cheap labor substitution.
Challenges to immigration‑related rulemaking frequently proceed on expedited timetables given the immediate economic and administrative consequences. In this case, plaintiffs have sought preliminary injunctive relief to halt fee collection while the court adjudicates the merits. To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.
Courts addressing similar disputes weigh agency deference—particularly under the Chevron and Auer doctrines—against the requirement that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for regulatory action. Where courts find that an agency acted outside statutory authority, failed to follow required procedures or offered an inadequate administrative record, they have vacated or enjoined rules.
Observers expect the government to vigorously defend the rule and to argue that courts should give deference to agency policymaking choices, particularly when grounded in statutory text and supported by economic analysis.
Several matters will be central as the litigation unfolds:
The challenge to the fee rule is the latest chapter in a years‑long debate over the structure and purpose of U.S. high‑skilled immigration policy. Administrations of both parties have alternately tightened and loosened rules governing H‑1B adjudications, wage levels, public‑charge standards and visa processing. Courts have repeatedly been the arena where policy and law collide.
Policy advocates on either side of the debate argue their position advances U.S. competitiveness, worker protection or economic fairness. Proponents of increased enforcement and higher fees argue that the program has been abused and underprices labor; advocates for openness contend that highly skilled immigration contributes to innovation and job creation and that sudden policy shifts risk harming employers and higher education.
For an overview of the legal standards governing agency rulemaking, see the Cornell Legal Information Institute’s summary of the Administrative Procedure Act: APA overview.
Legal and economic experts emphasize different frames. Administrative law scholars say the outcome will hinge on the agencies’ ability to tie the fee to a clear statutory grant of authority and to support the regulation with reasoned factual findings. Labor economists stress the importance of careful empirical analysis to anticipate market responses to such a large price signal.
One academic expert on immigration policy summarized the stakes: “This kind of fee, if upheld, would be an unprecedented lever on employer behavior—its effects would depend heavily on the elasticity of demand for foreign talent in particular sectors and the availability of domestic substitutes.†(Comment attributed to an immigration policy researcher; for background on research in this area see the Brookings and NBER links above.)
Employers weighing H‑1B sponsorships face increased regulatory uncertainty. Human resources and legal departments are likely to revisit hiring projections and to weigh alternatives such as:
For foreign nationals, higher employer costs could reduce the number of job offers or alter compensation and mobility prospects. Conversely, if the surcharge reduces the supply of H‑1B petitions, market wages for some skilled occupations might rise.
The case will proceed through pretrial motion practice. If the court grants preliminary relief, the agencies could be blocked from collecting the surcharge while the merits are litigated. If the court denies relief, plaintiffs may press forward to trial and, if necessary, appeal.
Given the strategic importance of H‑1B flows for many sectors, the litigation will likely remain a focal point for employers, universities and policymakers.
The challenge to the Trump administration’s proposed $100,000 H‑1B surcharge pits aggressive regulatory reform against statutory limits and procedural safeguards. Plaintiffs assert that the fee flouts statutory authority and administrative law norms; the government defends the rule as a legitimate policy instrument to protect American workers and fund enforcement and training. How courts balance deference to agency policymaking against demands for reasoned explanation and adherence to statutory text will determine whether the fee takes effect—an outcome with potentially significant consequences for employers, universities and foreign workers who participate in the U.S. high‑skilled labor market.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and does not represent investment or legal advice.
Further reading and sources:
Like
Dislike
Love
Angry
Sad
Funny
Wow
What a 100% Tariff on Computer Chips Would Mean for Consumers, Industry and the Global Supply Chain
October 08, 2025
Bitcoin ETFs See $501 Million Inflow 14th Day in a Row, Ethereum ETFs Gain $77.45 Million
June 28, 2025
'In business, indecision is killer' - Canadian firms seek certainty in tariff war
June 28, 2025
Affordances in the brain: The human superpower AI hasn’t mastered
June 23, 2025
Comments 0