A coalition of 20 states led by California filed suit in federal court in Boston on 13 December to stop the Trump administration from imposing a US$100,000 fee on every new H-1B petition. The complaint argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorises the government to charge only the amount necessary to recover adjudication costs—currently about US$2,000-5,000 per filing—and that converting the programme into a revenue generator exceeds executive authority. The states calculate that the rule would add roughly US$3 billion in new costs over the next three fiscal years and disproportionately hit technology, higher-education and health-care employers that rely on foreign talent.
Plaintiffs also warn of a chilling effect on start-ups and research institutions that cannot pass the six-figure surcharge onto grant budgets or venture-capital funding. California Attorney-General Rob Bonta called the measure “a stealth tax that Congress never approved,” while Massachusetts officials noted that 37 percent of computer-systems design workers in the state hold H-1B status. The United States Chamber of Commerce and several employer coalitions have filed parallel challenges, and the three cases may be consolidated early next year.
![20 U.S. states sue to block Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee]()
Companies that find themselves balancing budget constraints with the need for global talent can turn to VisaHQ for help navigating U.S. immigration requirements. VisaHQ’s online platform offers step-by-step application support, document checking, and real-time tracking for work visas and alternative categories, easing the burden on HR teams and foreign hires alike. Learn more at https://www.visahq.com/united-states/.
The White House defends the fee as a deterrent to alleged abuse of the programme, arguing that large outsourcing firms monopolise limited H-1B numbers and drive down U.S. wages. Critics counter that the true effect will be to redirect investment to Canada, the U.K. and Singapore, where work-permit costs remain a fraction of the proposed fee. Immigration lawyers predict immediate disruption for the FY-2027 cap season that opens in March, because employers must budget filing costs months in advance.
Practical take-away: multinationals should review head-count plans, consider L-1 or O-1 alternatives, and model cost impacts if the fee survives judicial review. Employers signing offer letters this quarter may wish to insert contingent language covering potential government surcharges. Finally, companies that rely on third-party work-site placements should track how vendors intend to absorb or pass on the new fee to end-clients.
Plaintiffs also warn of a chilling effect on start-ups and research institutions that cannot pass the six-figure surcharge onto grant budgets or venture-capital funding. California Attorney-General Rob Bonta called the measure “a stealth tax that Congress never approved,” while Massachusetts officials noted that 37 percent of computer-systems design workers in the state hold H-1B status. The United States Chamber of Commerce and several employer coalitions have filed parallel challenges, and the three cases may be consolidated early next year.
Companies that find themselves balancing budget constraints with the need for global talent can turn to VisaHQ for help navigating U.S. immigration requirements. VisaHQ’s online platform offers step-by-step application support, document checking, and real-time tracking for work visas and alternative categories, easing the burden on HR teams and foreign hires alike. Learn more at https://www.visahq.com/united-states/.
The White House defends the fee as a deterrent to alleged abuse of the programme, arguing that large outsourcing firms monopolise limited H-1B numbers and drive down U.S. wages. Critics counter that the true effect will be to redirect investment to Canada, the U.K. and Singapore, where work-permit costs remain a fraction of the proposed fee. Immigration lawyers predict immediate disruption for the FY-2027 cap season that opens in March, because employers must budget filing costs months in advance.
Practical take-away: multinationals should review head-count plans, consider L-1 or O-1 alternatives, and model cost impacts if the fee survives judicial review. Employers signing offer letters this quarter may wish to insert contingent language covering potential government surcharges. Finally, companies that rely on third-party work-site placements should track how vendors intend to absorb or pass on the new fee to end-clients.
