Second US Judge Blocks $100,000 H-1B Fee, Putting Trump Administration Rule on Hold

A second federal judge has halted the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas. U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. ruled that federal agencies violated procedural rules by implementing the massive charge without mandatory public notice and comment periods.

Procedural Shortfalls Stall Policy Rollout

The order issued by U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California targets the administration’s efforts to enforce the fee through federal administrative directives. According to the ruling, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department failed to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates a formal notice-and-comment period before agencies can implement major policy changes.

By bypassing these statutory steps, federal immigration authorities acted outside their legal bounds, the judge noted. The preliminary injunction temporarily bars officials from collecting or enforcing the $100,000 requirement for specialized employment petitions while broader lawsuits proceed through the federal judicial system.

The decision represents the second major court challenge to successfully freeze the administration’s flagship employment-visa fee hike. Earlier, a federal court in Massachusetts issued a similar preliminary injunction after a coalition of state attorneys general challenged the policy. Despite the administration's attempts to extend the mandate through subsequent executive guidance, federal courts have consistently pointed out that executive branch agencies cannot circumvent legislative and administrative frameworks established by Congress.

Escalating Pressure from Coalition of Employers and Labor Unions

The legal challenge in California—captioned Global Nurse Force v. Trump—was initiated by a broad coalition including healthcare organizations, educational institutions, labor unions, and non-profit groups, represented by the legal organization Democracy Forward. A parallel suit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business federation, continues to wind its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Plaintiffs argued that the sudden imposition of a $100,000 fee per foreign specialist threw corporate recruitment, academic hiring, and healthcare staffing into immediate disarray. Under standard federal guidelines, basic filing fees for an H-1B visa range from roughly $2,000 to $5,000. Multiplying those costs exponentially overnight created insurmountable financial hurdles for smaller companies, hospitals, and research universities heavily reliant on foreign talent.

"Today's decision protected a system that had been thrown into chaos overnight," said Steve Bressler, an attorney with Democracy Forward, welcoming the ruling.

Legal representatives argued that while executive authorities possess broad discretion under the Immigration and Nationality Act to manage the entry of foreign nationals, that authority does not allow the executive branch to unilaterally alter statutory fee structures set by Congress.

Executive Authority vs. Legislative Mandates

The contentious policy originated from an executive proclamation enacted in September 2025, aimed at restricting foreign talent hiring from outside the United States. Administration officials defended the policy by asserting that high fees encourage domestic hiring, protect American workers, and ensure that only top-tier international talent is brought into the domestic economy.

However, immigration attorneys and business advocates argued that the H-1B program is already subject to annual statutory caps and rigorous labor condition applications to safeguard domestic wages. Industry leaders warned that prohibitive fees would not increase domestic hiring in specialized technical and scientific sectors; rather, they would force corporations to relocate vital research, development, and engineering operations overseas.

The ruling highlights an ongoing constitutional dispute over executive power in immigration matters. While federal courts acknowledge presidential authority to restrict foreign entry during national emergencies or under specific statutory provisions, judges have drawn a clear line against changing established administrative fee rules without following formal public rulemaking steps.

What Lies Ahead for H-1B Visas and High-Tech Hiring

For foreign professionals and American businesses, Judge Gilliam’s order offers immediate temporary relief. USCIS and the Department of State cannot collect the $100,000 fee on initial H-1B petitions while the injunction remains active. Existing H-1B holders and standard visa renewals remain unaffected by the litigation.

However, the policy battle is far from over. In response to early legal setbacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated a formal notice-and-comment process to establish a permanent fee increase of approximately $103,000 through regulatory channels. While that regulatory effort attempts to cure the administrative defects cited by Judge Gilliam, it will likely face a new wave of legal challenges once finalized.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is expected to appeal Judge Gilliam's order alongside the earlier ruling in Massachusetts. As these cases move toward appellate review, the future of high-skilled immigration policy remains a key battleground between executive oversight and judicial review.