Legal Challenge to Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Moves Forward as Government Seeks Delay

WASHINGTON–Employers and workers challenging the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions are urging a federal court in California to move toward a final ruling, while the administration is seeking to suspend the proceedings until an appeals court addresses the case.

The dispute centers on the legality of a presidential proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment for certain new H-1B visa petitions, a policy that has significant implications for American employers and foreign professionals, including Indian workers who rely heavily on the visa program.

In a joint case management statement filed October 20 in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the plaintiffs said they “challenge the lawfulness of a $100,000 payment requirement as a condition of processing H-1B visa petitions and entry into the United States.”

The filing follows a September 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, who partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and denied a request for class certification without prejudice.

The administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 9 and simultaneously asked the district court to pause further proceedings.

A hearing on the government’s request for a stay is scheduled for January 14, 2027.

The plaintiffs, however, want the litigation to continue while the appeal is pending.

They have proposed that the government submit the administrative record underlying the disputed policy by November 3, allowing the case to advance toward a potential summary judgment ruling.

“Plaintiffs are monitoring Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s September 30, 2026 order and may seek enforcement of the order if warranted,” the joint statement said.

The administration argues that continuing proceedings in the district court before the appellate court rules would be premature and could result in unnecessary litigation.

“Defendants maintain that further motions practice is inappropriate while the Ninth Circuit considers threshold jurisdictional issues,” the government said in the filing.

Under the administration’s proposed schedule, the administrative record would be produced 30 days after the appeals court issues its mandate or 30 days after any order denying the government’s request to suspend the proceedings.

Government attorneys also cited a separate federal court injunction issued in Massachusetts as a reason to delay further action.

“The outcome of this case will not change any status quo given the universal injunction entered in the District of Massachusetts,” the administration argued.

It added that continuing the litigation at this stage “only wastes the Parties’ and Court’s resources, and might well result in a duplicative appeal.”

The legal dispute is part of a broader series of challenges to the H-1B fee.

The case management statement identifies two additional pending appeals involving the policy: California v. Mullin in the First Circuit and Chamber of Commerce v. DHS in the District of Columbia Circuit.

The latter case was argued on March 9, 2026, according to the filing.

At the center of the litigation is whether President Donald Trump exceeded his legal authority by imposing the payment requirement and subsequently extending it.

The parties are also disputing whether the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act in implementing the policy.

Trump introduced the $100,000 fee through Presidential Proclamation 10973, signed September 19, 2025, and extended the measure through Proclamation 11069 on September 18, 2026.

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialized occupations, particularly in technology, engineering, health care and other skilled fields.

Indian nationals account for a substantial share of H-1B visa recipients, making the outcome of the litigation particularly important to Indian professionals and American companies that employ them.

The plaintiffs are represented by several legal advocacy organizations, including the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward and the South Asian American Justice Collaborative, along with the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

The immediate question before the California court is whether the lawsuit should proceed toward summary judgment while the government’s appeal remains unresolved. (Source: IANS)