US$100,000 H-1B visa fee will harm healthcare and education industries, lawsuit alleges

A coalition of healthcare providers and labour unions, among other organisations, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 3 October 2025 over its proclamation placing a US$100,000 filing fee on H-1B visa petitions filed after 21 September 2025. The plaintiffs have urged the US District Court for the Northern District of California to set aside the first three provisions of the proclamation.

Trump’s 19 September 2025 proclamation, which expires in September 2026, requires employers to provide proof of the US$100,000 payment for any H-1B petitions filed on behalf of foreign workers. The plaintiffs have claimed that the proclamation “transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either ‘pay to play’ or seek a ‘national interest’ exemption,” which “opens the door to selective enforcement and corruption.”

“The government failed to consider how extorting exorbitant fees will stifle innovation. The government failed to consider harms to hospitals, churches, schools and universities, and small businesses and non-profits, or how the fee will harm communities across the nation,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Indeed, economic data and studies confirm that the new $100,000 Requirement will harm, not help, the U.S. economy and workers and their families in the United States.”

Fisher Phillips partner Shanon Randhawa Stevenson told Lexology PRO in an email that the legal community was “anticipating” swift action against the new H-1B visa fee.

“It was no surprise that the plaintiffs came from a broad coalition of sectors because the valuable H-1B program is used by virtually all industries to meet their professional labor needs,” Stevenson said. “The Proclamation focused on the IT industry, but so many employers in other industries, such as healthcare, education, construction, and manufacturing, are negatively impacted."

H-1B fee to impact healthcare and education industries

Indeed, Trump’s proclamation singled out the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) sectors as having “abused the H-1B statute and its regulations to artificially suppress wages.” But the plaintiffs asserted on 3 October that the healthcare and education sectors – which Stevenson noted are “already facing labor shortages” – are particularly vulnerable to the new US$100,000 fee.

Lead plaintiff Global Nurse Force, a healthcare staffing company, said its US business model “is entirely based on the H-1B visa system and the ability of healthcare facilities to sponsor for H-1B visas the specialized nurses they need.” The organisation said the new H-1B visa fee has already directly impacted several of its clients.

For example, a Louisiana health system was preparing H-1B applications for more than 200 nurses when Trump issued his proclamation. Now, faced with a US$100,000 fee per nurse, the hospital – like many of Global Nurse Force’s clients – cannot afford to sponsor these nurses and is struggling to address staffing shortages, the plaintiffs explained.

“Without access to international nurses, [Global Nurse Force’s] clients will be forced to reduce capacity in ICUs, emergency rooms and surgical units,” the complaint said. “This proclamation directly threatens Global Nurse Force’s operations and forces hospitals towards staffing models that are significantly more expensive – raising healthcare costs rather than reducing them, so that the ultimate victims are patients, especially in rural and inner-city communities.”

The complaint also addressed the impacts of the US$100,000 fee on the education sector. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data, the educational services industry represented 7%, or 21,288, of H-1B approvals in fiscal year 2025.

The plaintiffs argued that the H-1B visa fee poses a threat to higher education, as well as public school systems. According to the complaint, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has “numerous members whose employers had planned to file H-1B petitions with USCIS on their behalf,” but these efforts have been postponed indefinitely because of the new filing fee.

“The potential loss of these postdoctoral researchers, scientists, and academics will not just harm the individuals and the institutions that employ them. It will result in significant and potentially catastrophic setbacks to research that benefits the American public and ensures the United States remains a leading source of innovation and expertise,” the plaintiffs wrote.

Global Nurse Force and the AAUP did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump’s “abrupt imposition” of the fee

The plaintiffs also argued on 3 October that Trump had “no authority to unilaterally impose fees, taxes or other mechanisms to generate revenue for the United States.” They explained that the US Constitution grants “the power of purse” to Congress, and that the US$100,000 H-1B visa fee disregards this limitation.

Not only does Trump’s proclamation violate federal law, the plaintiffs continued, but it also ignores the protections that the H-1B programme provides for US workers. These protections include a prohibition on employment discrimination against US workers in favour of foreign workers, a provision requiring employers to prove that H-1B workers will not displace US workers, and caps on how many H-1B visa petitions may be approved each year.

Currently, when H-1B registrations exceed the annual cap of 85,000, USCIS conducts a random selection from the electronic submissions by prospective employers. Selected employers may then file H-1B cap-subject petitions on behalf of their respective beneficiaries. However, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a weighted selection process that would favour the allocation of H-1B visas to higher-paid beneficiaries, instead of the random selection process.

The DHS’ proposed rule would assign one of four wage levels to employers. Level IV employers – or those paying an average annual salary of US$162,528 or more to H-1B workers – would receive four entries into the selection pool, while level I employers would only receive one entry. Level II and III employers would receive two and three entries, respectively.

The plaintiffs argued in the complaint that, “[i]n immediately adopting the $100,000 Requirement without notice and comment,” the DHS “failed to go through required regulatory processes.” It asked the district court to set aside any guidance or determinations that implement Trump’s proclamation.

Regarding the district court’s impending ruling, Fisher Phillips’ Stevenson said “anything is possible.”

“H-1B employers hope that the court grants declaratory and injunctive relief and orders agencies to process H-1B petitions under the existing H-1B regulations, without the new fee,” Stevenson said. “At the very least, the government needs to inform employers how they can apply for the National Interest Exemption, including which agency will make that determination, the process employers should follow to request the exemption and the criteria the government will use to grant the exemption.”

Counsel to plaintiffs

Justice Action Center

Founder and director Karen Tumlin in California

Democracy Forward Foundation

Senior Counsel Cynthia Liao in California

South Asian American Justice Collaborative

Executive director Kalpana Peddibhotla in California