Washington: A coalition of U.S. states led by California has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit challenging a controversial $100,000 fee imposed on new H 1B visa applications by the Trump administration. The unprecedented fee, which is a dramatic increase from traditional visa costs that typically range in the low thousands, has ignited strong opposition from state governments, employers, and education institutions across the country.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit on Friday in a federal court in Massachusetts. He described the fee as illegal, excessively burdensome, and disruptive to essential sectors such as healthcare, education, and technology, which rely heavily on skilled foreign workers. Alongside California, at least 19 other states, including New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington, have joined the lawsuit, marking one of the most extensive state-led challenges to a federal immigration policy in recent history.
The core of the lawsuit centers on the claim that the Trump administration exceeded its statutory authority by levying such a steep fee. Under federal law, visa-related fees are generally intended to cover administrative costs associated with processing applications, not to generate revenue or reshape labor markets. Legal experts argue that the $100,000 fee far exceeds any reasonable administrative cost and constitutes an unlawful attempt to influence immigration policy without Congressional approval.
The states assert that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” and undermines constitutional principles by effectively raising a federal tax without legislative consent. They warn that the policy’s implementation could chill employment opportunities, particularly in industries that depend on highly skilled workers from abroad, including hospitals, universities, and tech companies.
Attorney General Bonta emphasized, “This fee threatens to destabilize sectors that are already struggling with labor shortages. Hospitals, universities, and schools depend on international talent to maintain services and meet critical demands.”
The fee applies exclusively to new H 1B visa petitions filed after September 21, 2025, leaving existing visa holders unaffected. Nevertheless, for employers seeking to hire even a handful of skilled workers, the financial burden is substantial. Each new H 1B employee under this fee schedule could trigger a six-figure expense, in addition to standard processing fees, creating a disincentive for companies to hire foreign talent.
This development is particularly concerning for sectors facing critical staffing shortages. Hospitals and healthcare facilities already report difficulty filling roles such as nurses, physicians, and medical technicians, and universities depend on international scholars and faculty to sustain research and educational programs. The states’ complaint stresses that these shortages could be exacerbated by prohibitive visa fees, potentially harming public health, education quality, and innovation.
The H 1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign workers for specialized roles in fields such as technology, engineering, academia, and medicine. The program has long been a focal point in debates over labor and immigration policy. Critics argue that H 1B visas can suppress domestic wages and displace U.S. workers in certain sectors, while proponents contend that access to global talent is vital for innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth.
Since its inception, the H 1B program has been limited by annual caps, and employers typically compete through a lottery system to secure visas. The Trump administration’s imposition of the $100,000 fee represents a dramatic shift, effectively pricing out many smaller companies and institutions from participating in the program.
The states’ lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal challenges against the fee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business coalitions have filed separate lawsuits, arguing that the fee is arbitrary and imposes unnecessary costs on U.S. businesses. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to hear one such case in the coming week.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which implemented the fee following a presidential proclamation in September 2025, defended the policy as a lawful exercise of executive authority. Administration officials argue that the fee is intended to protect American workers and prevent abuse of the visa system, while also generating revenue for administrative operations. They maintain that the policy is a necessary measure to address perceived imbalances in the labor market and ensure that foreign workers do not unfairly compete with U.S. employees.
Legal analysts warn that the outcome of this challenge could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. immigration policy and executive power. A ruling in favor of the states could limit the administration’s ability to impose large, revenue-driven visa fees without Congressional authorization. Conversely, a ruling favoring the Trump administration might embolden future unilateral reforms, potentially reshaping the landscape of high-skilled immigration in the United States.
Beyond legal ramifications, the policy could have tangible social and economic effects. Hospitals could struggle to hire critical medical staff, universities might face faculty shortages, and technology firms could lose competitive advantage if foreign experts are priced out of the labor market.
Summary of the Legal Challenge
• 19+ states have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the $100,000 H 1B visa fee.
• States claim the fee is illegal, unconstitutional, and harmful to critical sectors.
• The fee applies only to new H 1B visa applications filed after September 21, 2025.
• Separate lawsuits by business coalitions and unions are underway.
• The Trump administration defends the policy as a legitimate measure to protect U.S. workers.
The unfolding legal battle represents a key test of executive authority over immigration policy, and its outcome could determine the future structure of high-skilled work visas in the United States for years to come.