In a dramatic legal confrontation that underscores America’s deep divisions over immigration policy, 20 U.S. states filed a federal lawsuit on December 12, 2025, challenging President Trump’s $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications. The lawsuit represents one of the most significant challenges to Trump’s sweeping immigration restrictions and raises critical questions about presidential authority, labor shortages in essential sectors, and the future of America’s skilled immigration system.
Led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the coalition argues that Trump administration exceeded its constitutional authority and violated federal law by imposing what they call an “illegal barrier” to hiring skilled foreign workers. The policy threatens to destabilize education, healthcare, and technology sectors already facing acute worker shortages. This is more than just a fee dispute—it’s a constitutional battle over who controls immigration policy: Congress or the President.
What Exactly is Trump’s H-1B Fee Policy?
The Numbers: From Hundreds to Six Figures
On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee per H-1B visa application. To understand how dramatic this change is, consider the context:
Current H-1B Fees (before the policy):
H-1B registration fee: $215
H-1B petition filing fee: $780
Additional fees: $500-$1,500
Total: Approximately $1,500-$2,500 per application
New Trump Fee:
One-time $100,000 fee per H-1B petition
Total new cost: $101,500-$102,500 per application
This represents a 40-70 times increase in fees for employers seeking to hire skilled foreign workers.
The Scope: Who Is Affected?
The fee applies to:
New H-1B petitions filed on behalf of foreign nationals currently outside the United States
Effective September 21, 2025
Applies to future lottery filings (starting February 2026)
Does NOT apply to current H-1B holders or those who filed before September 21, 2025
What this means in practical terms: If a tech company wants to hire 10 Indian software engineers through the H-1B program, they must now pay $1 million in visa fees alone—before salaries, benefits, or any other costs.
The Real Impact: Financial Burden
For employers, the cost implications are staggering:
Tech Company Example:
Company sponsoring 10 H-1B workers annually
Current fee cost: $25,000 total
New fee cost: $1,000,000 total
Annual increase: $975,000
Healthcare Example:
Major hospital network sponsoring 50 H-1B doctors and nurses
New annual cost: $5,000,000
University Example:
Large research university sponsoring 100 H-1B researchers and faculty
New annual cost: $10,000,000
The Lawsuit: 20 States Say “This is Unconstitutional”
The Coalition
On December 12-13, 2025, attorneys general from 20 states filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court challenging the fee. The lawsuit represents a bipartisan concern about the policy’s impact on states’ essential services:
States Leading the Lawsuit:
California (led by AG Rob Bonta)
Massachusetts (co-led by AG Andrea Joy Campbell)
Other 18 States Joining:
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The Legal Arguments
The states make four core constitutional arguments:
1. Exceeds Presidential Authority
Congress—not the President—has authority over visa fees and immigration policy
The Immigration and Nationality Act grants Congress exclusive power to set visa fees
Presidents cannot unilaterally impose fees beyond administrative costs
2. Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The Trump administration bypassed required “notice and comment” rulemaking
Federal agencies must follow proper procedures before implementing major policy changes
The fee was imposed through presidential proclamation without public comment period
3. The Fee is Arbitrary and Capricious
The $100,000 amount appears designed to deliberately discourage H-1B hiring
Historical H-1B fees have been limited to administrative costs (roughly $2,500)
A $100,000 fee exceeds any reasonable interpretation of administrative necessity
4. Violates Equal Protection and Due Process
Creates unlawful financial burden on public employers (states, hospitals, schools)
Threatens constitutional rights to education and healthcare access
Impacts interstate commerce and economic stability
California’s Direct Statement
During a press conference on December 12, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated:
“President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary financial burdens on public employers and providers of vital services, worsening labor shortages. Congress has refined this program, setting caps, establishing fees, enhancing enforcement and strengthening protections, but what Congress has never done is authorize a president to impose a six-figure surcharge designed to dismantle the program entirely.”
He further emphasized: “No president can rewrite immigration law. No president can destabilize our schools, our hospitals and universities on a whim.”
Why This Matters: The Real-World Impact
The H-1B Program: A Brief Background
The H-1B visa program, created in 1990, allows U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals for “specialty occupations” requiring at least a bachelor’s degree. The program has annual caps:
65,000 visas for general occupations
20,000 additional visas for advanced degree holders (master’s or higher)
Unlimited visas for certain exempt categories (nonprofits, government, universities, research institutions)
Who Relies on H-1B Workers?
Technology Sector (Largest User):
Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Meta
H-1B workers comprise 10-15% of workforce at major tech companies
Critical for software engineers, data scientists, AI researchers
Healthcare Sector:
Hospitals desperately need H-1B physicians and nurses
As of 2024, approximately 8,100 H-1B petitions filed by healthcare providers annually
Many rural hospitals and specialty medical centers depend on international doctors
Education & Research:
Universities rely on H-1B researchers and faculty
Essential for STEM fields, where American PhDs often unavailable
COVID-19 vaccine development involved 8 companies that hired H-1B workers
Engineering & Manufacturing:
Critical infrastructure projects
Specialized technical expertise often unavailable domestically
The Labor Shortage Crisis
America faces acute skilled worker shortages:
Tech Industry: Struggling to fill 500,000+ open positions in software development, AI, cloud computing, and cybersecurity.
Healthcare: Facing severe shortages of physicians, especially in rural areas. The American Medical Association reports 37,000 physician shortage by 2033.
Education: Universities cannot fill STEM faculty positions with qualified American applicants alone.
The $100,000 fee essentially makes these positions economically impossible to fill through H-1B sponsorship, forcing companies to either relocate operations abroad, reduce hiring, or leave critical positions vacant.
Trump’s Defense: Why the Administration Imposed the Fee
The Official Justification
The Trump administration argues the fee serves multiple purposes:
Protecting American Workers:
Reduces competition for American workers
Eliminates incentive for companies to hire cheaper foreign labor
Keeps high-paying jobs for U.S. citizens
Closing “Loopholes”:
Claims tech companies exploit H-1B visa lottery system
Alleges some companies use H-1B visas to displace American workers
Argues the fee deters “bad actors”
Historical Claims:
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated: “The H-1B visa has been ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited.”
Claims outsourcing companies use H-1B visas to replace American workers with cheaper labor
The Political Context
Trump’s H-1B policy reflects broader immigration restrictions implemented by his administration:
Student visa restrictions (2025)
J-1 exchange visitor visa cuts (2025)
Overall reduction in legal immigration (40% decrease vs. Biden years)
Most restrictive legal immigration policies in decades
This is part of Trump’s campaign promise to dramatically reduce all forms of immigration—legal and illegal—and prioritize “America First” labor policies.
The Debate: Who’s Right?
Arguments Supporting the Fee
Protectionist Position:
American workers should get priority for jobs
H-1B wages are often lower than American workers demand
Companies sometimes exploit visa lottery system
Reduces financial incentive to hire foreigners
Tech Hiring Data:
Companies like Meta, Google have laid off American workers while maintaining H-1B programs
Some outsourcing firms use H-1B primarily for cost reduction
Arguments Against the Fee
Economic Reality:
No replacement supply: American universities don’t graduate enough STEM workers
Labor shortage crisis: 500,000+ unfilled tech jobs; 37,000 physician shortage
Global talent migration: Top talent will work for Canada, UK, Singapore instead
Startup impact: Small companies cannot afford $100,000 fees; only mega-corporations can
Healthcare Crisis:
Rural hospitals cannot function without international doctors
Specialty surgeons, researchers unavailable domestically
Public health threatens when critical positions unfilled
Research & Innovation:
U.S. universities lose international PhD students and researchers
America’s innovation leadership depends on global talent
Competitors (China, EU) actively recruit displaced talent
Business Reality:
Elon Musk (Twitter/X CEO) publicly supports H-1B expansion
Major tech companies issued joint statement opposing fee
Chamber of Commerce warns of economic damage
Historical Precedent: Has Congress Ruled on This Before?
The Trump First Term Comparison
During Trump’s first presidency (2017-2021), his administration attempted multiple restrictions on H-1B visas and other legal immigration. The outcomes:
Federal courts blocked most restrictions as exceeding presidential authority
Key ruling: Courts determined Congress—not the President—has authority over visa policy
Biden administration revoked many Trump-era restrictions in 2021
The current lawsuit invokes similar legal precedent, arguing Trump again overstepped constitutional bounds.
The Constitutional Authority Question
The fundamental legal issue: Can the President unilaterally restrict immigration, or does Congress retain exclusive authority?
Congressional Authority (Immigration & Nationality Act):
Congress sets visa caps, categories, and fees
Congress authorized specific fee amounts
Congress can change these provisions through legislation
Executive Authority (Under Debate):
President can restrict entry of aliens for “national security” (broad interpretation)
President can impose security-related conditions
But does this extend to fee-setting?
The lawsuit’s core argument: The President cannot use vague “national security” authority to completely rewrite visa fees set by Congress.
What Happens Next? The Legal Timeline
Immediate Actions (December 2025-January 2026)
Phase 1: Initial court filings and injunction requests
States will likely seek emergency injunction to halt fee immediately
Federal judge will hear arguments within weeks
Decision: Temporary block of fee, fee allowed to proceed, or compromise
Phase 2: Summary judgment arguments
States argue fee is clearly unconstitutional
Trump administration defends fee as lawful exercise of authority
Could be decided in weeks or months
Long-Term Outlook (2026-2027)
Appeal to Circuit Court:
Losing party appeals to U.S. Circuit Court
Takes 6-18 months
Potential Supreme Court:
Given constitutional significance, likely reaches U.S. Supreme Court
Could take 1-2 years to reach Supreme Court
Decision would set precedent for presidential immigration authority
Historical Timing Context
The Trump first-term visa restrictions took 3-4 years to fully litigate. This lawsuit could follow similar timeline, meaning:
Likely Outcome:
Fee blocked or significantly reduced within 6-12 months
Trump administration appeals
Possible Supreme Court review in 2027-2028
The Broader Implications: What This Means for Immigration Policy
The Bigger Picture
This lawsuit is not just about H-1B fees—it’s about fundamental questions of American governance:
1. Presidential Power vs. Congressional Authority
How much immigration authority can the President exercise unilaterally?
What limits exist on emergency/proclamation powers?
Can Presidents override Congressional intent?
2. Labor Policy Direction
Will America restrict legal immigration dramatically?
Can market forces determine who gets hired?
Will skilled immigration shrink or expand?
3. American Competitiveness
Will restrictions on skilled immigration reduce U.S. innovation?
Will talent migrate to Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore?
Will U.S. companies relocate operations abroad?
4. Essential Services
Can America function without international healthcare workers?
Will education and research institutions lose competitiveness?
Will rural communities face increased service gaps?
The Bigger Trend: 2025 Immigration Crackdown
Trump’s H-1B fee is just one element of a broader immigration crackdown:
Student visa restrictions limiting international students
J-1 visa cuts reducing exchange visitors
Border wall extensions and enforcement increases
Deportation initiatives targeting undocumented immigrants
Proposed merit-based system overhauling legal immigration
This represents the most restrictive immigration approach since the 1920s—and the lawsuit indicates states, cities, and businesses view it as overreach.
The Indian Perspective: Impacts on Indian Workers
Why This Matters Globally
India is the largest source of H-1B visa recipients:
70%+ of H-1B visas go to Indian nationals
Approximately 150,000+ Indians on H-1B visas currently
Represents major economic opportunity for Indian tech workers
The Impact on Indian IT Professionals
For Current H-1B Workers:
No immediate impact if already in U.S. or filed before September 21
Can potentially transition to green cards or other visa categories
For Future Indian Workers:
$100,000 fee makes U.S. employment significantly more expensive
Indian IT companies (TCS, Infosys, Wipro) face massive cost increases
May shift hiring to other countries: Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore
For Indian IT Industry:
Reduces demand for Indian contract workers abroad
Creates opportunities for local hiring in other countries
Could impact India’s tech export industry
Alternative Destinations
If H-1B becomes economically unviable, Indian workers will look to:
Canada: Express Entry program, significantly easier immigration
UK: Points-based visa system, more accessible
Australia: Skilled migration, strong Indian community
Singapore: Tech hub with less restrictive immigration
This represents a potential shift in global talent flow that could benefit other countries while harming U.S. competitiveness.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Showdown Over America’s Immigration Future
The Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee has triggered a constitutional crisis—one that will determine whether Presidents can unilaterally reshape immigration policy or whether Congress retains exclusive authority.
The stakes are enormous:
For employers and businesses, the fee threatens to make hiring skilled foreign workers economically impossible, potentially leading to unfilled positions, stalled projects, and reduced innovation.
For Americans, restricted immigration means fewer competitors for jobs but also reduced economic growth, higher labor costs, and potential shortages in healthcare, education, and technology.
For America’s global standing, immigration restrictions may reduce competitiveness as top talent migrates to more welcoming countries.
For constitutional law, the lawsuit will clarify the boundaries of presidential immigration authority—a question that has lingered since Trump’s first term.
The bottom line: This isn’t just about visa fees. It’s about who controls America’s immigration policy and what kind of country America will be in the decades ahead. The federal courts will decide, but the implications will reverberate across technology, healthcare, education, and beyond.
The 20 states suing have made their position clear: “No president can rewrite immigration law.” The Trump administration counters: “Presidents must protect American workers.”
Which side prevails will shape America’s future.
