On October 3, 2025, a coalition of healthcare staffing firms, unions, universities, religious organizations, and skilled workers filed Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump et al. in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s proclamation requiring employers to pay $100,000 for each new H-1B petition unless granted a discretionary “national interest” exemption.
The case raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power over immigration, the role of Congress in setting fees, and whether courts will see the measure as a regulatory tool or an unlawful pay-to-play barrier.
Earlier Lawsuits Over the H-1B Lottery
The H-1B system has been in court before. In 2016, Tenrec v. USCIS challenged the lottery itself as arbitrary, urging a waiting list system instead of random selection. Although the court let the case move forward, plaintiffs later withdrew after succeeding in subsequent lotteries, leaving no binding precedent.
In 2021, the Trump administration finalized a rule to replace the random lottery with wage-based selection. Lawsuits followed, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other plaintiffs in California. In September 2021, Judge Jeffrey White vacated the rule, finding that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf had not been lawfully serving when he issued it. That technical defect was enough to strike the rule, without reaching the broader question of whether DHS could lawfully rank petitions by wage. The Biden administration then formally withdrew the rule, leaving the random lottery intact.
Transparency has also been contested. AILA and advocacy groups brought FOIA lawsuits to compel USCIS to release data on lottery selection methods, algorithms, and outcomes. While some aggregate figures were disclosed, courts generally deferred to the agency on withholding internal methodologies, keeping the system largely opaque. These lawsuits fueled broader arguments about fairness and accountability in H-1B administration.
Claims in the Current Case
The new plaintiffs focus on the financial barrier created by the proclamation. Their arguments include:
- Only Congress can impose such fees, making the proclamation unconstitutional.
- The $100,000 charge violates the Administrative Procedure Act, with no notice-and-comment process, no evidence supporting the figure, and no consideration of alternatives.
- The “national interest” exemption creates a pay-to-play system that allows favoritism and disadvantages smaller employers, nonprofits, and universities.
- Institutions face immediate, irreparable harm if they cannot petition for needed workers.
Notably, the lawsuit does not directly attack the proclamation’s entry restrictions on certain workers abroad. That may be intentional: in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s ban on nationals of several Muslim-majority countries, signaling broad deference to presidential authority over entry. Plaintiffs may believe courts are more likely to strike down the fee than the entry ban.
What the Court Will Consider
Standing is straightforward: employers and institutions face direct financial injury.
The APA claims may be decisive. Judges are likely to ask why $100,000 was chosen, whether less burdensome options were considered, and why notice-and-comment rulemaking was bypassed. The sheer size of the fee could make it appear more like a revenue-raising measure than a regulatory one, strengthening arguments that only Congress can authorize it.
The exemption system may also face close scrutiny. Courts generally require agencies to provide standards to prevent arbitrary or politically influenced decision-making. A vague waiver process could be struck down even if the fee itself is upheld.
On the entry restrictions, the courts could split the proclamation. They might strike down the fee while upholding the entry ban, drawing on the precedent of Trump v. Hawaii. This partial relief scenario may explain why the plaintiffs concentrated their case on the fee structure.
What to Watch Next
The first major step will be whether a judge grants a preliminary injunction to pause the $100,000 fee. Plaintiffs will argue they face immediate harm, while the administration will defend the proclamation as a lawful exercise of regulatory discretion.
The litigation is certain to continue through appeals. Possible outcomes include:
- Full injunction blocking the fee pending further rulemaking.
- Partial relief, narrowing the exemption process or striking down the fee but leaving the entry ban intact.
- Deference to executive authority, allowing the proclamation to stand in full.
Conclusion
The lawsuit over the $100,000 H-1B fee is not the first time the courts have been asked to review how the government manages the lottery system, but it is the most direct challenge yet to a president’s ability to unilaterally reshape the program.
Past lawsuits over the lottery, wage-based selection, and transparency show that courts will scrutinize H-1B policies under the APA but often stop short of dismantling them entirely. This case could follow a similar path, with judges more willing to strike down the fee than to question the president’s power to restrict entry.
The outcome will shape not only the immediate fate of H-1B petitions but also the balance of power between Congress and the presidency in U.S. immigration law.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
