The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lawsuit Challenges Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
The case was filed yesterday by a broad coalition of different groups, including a health care provider, education groups, religious organizations, and labor unions.

Yesterday, a broad coalition of groups filed the first lawsuit challenging President Trump's imposition of a $100,000 fee on applications for H-1B visas, which are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers and researchers with various specialized skills. If allowed to stand, the fee would effectively end most H-1B visas, by making them prohibitively expensive, thereby inflicting serious harm on the US economy.
The case is called Global Nurse Force v. Trump. The plaintiffs are a broad coalition including the Global Nurse Force (which supplies nurses to health care providers), education groups (e.g. - the American Association of University Professors), religious organizations, and labor unions. I am a little surprised that multiple labor unions joined this lawsuit, as one might think they would want to keep out potential competitors to their members. However, I would guess they have H-1B visa holders among those members. In addition, studies show that H-1B workers actually increase wages for many US-citizen workers by increasing productivity and innovation.
The complaint argues the H-1B visa is illegal for a number of different reasons. Here's a brief excerpt that summarizes some of them:
Defendants' abrupt imposition of the $100,000 Requirement is unlawful. The
President has no authority to unilaterally alter the comprehensive statutory scheme created by Congress. Most fundamentally, the President has no authority to unilaterally impose fees, taxes or other mechanisms to generate revenue for the United States, nor to dictate how those funds are spent. The Constitution assigns the "power of the purse" to Congress, as one of its most fundamental premises. Here, the President disregarded those limitations, asserted power he does not have, and displaced a complex, Congressionally specified system for evaluating petitions and granting H-1B visas. The Proclamation transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either "pay to play" or seek a "national interest" exemption, which will be doled out at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, a system that opens the door to selective enforcement and corruption.
The plaintiffs also argue that the government's assertion of virtually unlimited power to impose visa fees goes against the major questions doctrine (which requires Congress to speak clearly when it delegates broad powers to the executive over issues of vast economic and political significance), and the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, which limits delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.
I made similar points in an earlier post about the H-1B visa fee policy, where I explained why it goes against the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, and why it would violate the nondelegation doctrine if Congress had delegated this power.
As the Global Nurse Force complaint notes, enforcing nondelegation is particularly crucial when it comes to the power to raise revenue, which is a specifically enumerated congressional power. The $100,000 fee goes far beyond anything that could plausibly be described as defraying administrative expenses, and is essentially a form of taxation. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to ensure that only the legislative branch could impose taxes, in order to avoid the abusive executive taxation pursued by 17th century British monarchs. This is one of several areas where Trump is attempting to usurp this legislative power. Others include his unilateral imposition of massive tariffs, and his unconstitutional export taxes (which even Congress lacks the power to impose under the Constitution).
I hope the plaintiffs prevail here. I expect there may also be other lawsuits challenging the H-1B fee.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yet again this is easy - you're either for the Constitution, or for Trump.
There is a right for corporations to import in tons of foreign workers enshrined in the Constitution? Those Colonial Yankees must have been pretty slick to invent bureaucratic acronyms like H1B before they were cool.
You've grabbed hold of the wrong end of a different stick, The question is whether Trump can impose a tax like this.
Obama and Biden could provide amnesty or protection from removal for any reason they wished.
Trump is following suit.
You should've criticized DACA, which did the same thing, minus any financial benefit.
There's a right for policies duly passed by Congress and signed by the President to be the law of the land.
And a right that the President cannot ignore them and make up his own nonsense in it's place without Congress.
You know, the fundamental way our Constitution is set up.
So I guess tons of stuff in the budget and countless policies and regulations over the centuries are null and void if they originated in the mind of a member of the executive branch rather than the legislature?
I guess if you work hard to be ignorant of the Constitutional process you can pretend everything is abusive, and thus ignore actual abuses, albeit at the expense of your dignity.
You believe the Administrative Procedure Act means any government official can just pass laws? You're delusional.
Where were you when agencies were making passing and enforcing laws all by themselves?
Like what?
Oh yes, the sacred duty of the executive to enforce laws passed by congress. Amazing how you only care about that when an (R) is in office.
Amazing you think Trump isn't extraordinary.
Nah, it's not. Your resort to tu quoque shows you know he's indefensible.
Oh no Trump violated the law. It is getting old liberals complaining about how illegal Trump's actions are. They need a new talking point. SCOTUS has made it clear that Trump is allowed to do whatever he wants.
As Ilya himself has pointed out earlier the Supreme Court has handed Trump some wins but has also restrained him when he clearly exceeds the limits (despite prog amnesia he is far from the first at this. Every President has tested the limits of their constitutional powers, some constantly). Turns out Presidents are extremely powerful if they have all three branches of the government on their side.
Contrary to recent prog myth. The President is not obligated to act as if he only had the power he does if all the rest of the government was in the opposing parties hands and Congress and the Court are not obligated to obstruct the President as if they were in the opposite party at all times. If the President specifies something that is technically within Congressional final authority and Congress agrees with him. Then that is that.
But I am looking forward to seeing progs stick to their moral principles and oppose a Dem President going ham and probably actually violating the constitution when they have all the branches of government under their control. Something tells me not to hold my breath.
If the President specifies something that is technically within Congressional final authority and Congress agrees with him. Then that is that.
Fortunately there is an easy way to find out if Congress agrees with him. Just ask them to pass a bill incorporating the changes he wants. If they pass it, fine. If not, then maybe Congress doesn't agree.
You seem to think that if the President's party controls Congress he can do whatever he wants, without bureaucratic formalities like legislation, etc.
Or if they are so certain he will be slapped down and that we need a full formal vote on every fart the Executive branch makes the Congressional Dems can make a proposal to do so. Congress still meets right?
You keep relying on whether you think Trump will get away with it, and ignore whether it's Constitutional, legal, etc.
That really only works if want a king. Or are so obsessed with hating the left you forgot to care about America.
As usual, Somin takes the anti-American position.
If H-1B workers are really as valuable as the advocates suggest, then paying the $100k fee would be worthwhile.
As usual Roger S takes the pro-Trump/anti-constitution position.
Trump (shoots someone on 5th Ave)
Somin: Trump shouldn't be allowed to shoot people on 5th Ave
Roger S: why does Somin hate America?
It's an application fee. Paying $100k for such a visa might be worthwhile. Paying $100k for nothing but the right to apply for a visa is not.
It shouldn't be long until the remaining players are indeed paying $100k for the near certainty of a visa. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the application pool will rapidly self-correct to those actual high-skill, high-compensation positions that can absorb the new app fee. The current ~20% approval rate is a byproduct of a super-low application fee and of course won't persist under the new regime.
If you are a Libertarian who believes in market solutions, then the application fee should be raised until applications drop to the number of visas.
Yes. The point was for H1Bs to be used by those who had skills that no Americans did. It wasn't intended to be used to import low quality Indian software engineers who would work for cheaper than Americans.
I'm curious about the argument that appears to state that the executive branch can't impose a fee unless it's been authorized by Congress. Does this apply to any and all fees charged by federal agencies?
For instance, some years ago the National Forest Service started charging to park at trailheads in a NF near where I lived. Did this require an act of Congress to authorize those specific fees? Or, at some point, had Congress passed legislation empowering the NFS to charge fees at its discretion, presumably subject to certain limits. Or, yet another possibility, was it governed by something akin to the major-questions doctrine: fees could be charged sufficient to cover marginal costs without running afoul of Congress's power of the purse, but the new Trump H1B fees go far beyond such marginal costs?
AI summary
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA): This act authorizes the NPS to charge entrance and recreation fees, including parking fees, to support park operations and maintenance.
Yes.
According to the complaint:
Section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), provides:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Does that mean that the President can, by proclamation, end the issuance of all new H-1B visas?
Can the President, by proclamation, make the $100,000 fee a $100,000 bond, that will be refunded to the employer once the H-1B holder has left the United States?
Can the $100,000 fee be justified as a "[restriction] that he may deem to be appropriate"? I.e., rename the "fee" as a "restriction on low cost/value labor".
The $100,000 fee is to pay for the processing of the application.
It includes wages and benefits of all involved employees and their supervisors and managers as well as the associated computer processing and storage.
There are a lot of indirect costs to these visas.
As mentioned, Section 212(f) of the INA provides:
The Supreme Court has over the last 150 years or so repeatedly made clear that Congress has plenary power over immigration. Congress, in turn, has delegated practically all that power to the President. The above delegation could hardly be broader. Does the phrase "any restriction" include a fee? I would suggest that, of course, it does.
The plaintiffs did choose the Northern District of California, which during the first Trump administration was the first choice of forum shoppers seeking a ruling against Trump, so I'd be surprised if they don't get a TRO by Monday morning, but that will say little about the ultimate outcome of the case.
'Of course' is always a tell.
Clearly, you've got such a banger argument you needn't bother making it.
[Seriously, Google or otherwise research the court cases that cite 212(f)...that delegation is not as broad as you think.]
What an amazing mic drop it would have been to continue, "FOR EXAMPLE . . ." and cite even just a single one of those cases factually relevant to this situation.
I'm astounded you passed up such a pwnage opportunity when you so clearly had the goods.
I just looked, and the ND of Cal has 26 judges, including those on senior status, and 1 was appointed by Bush senior, and only by Bush junior. The other 24 were appointed by either Pedo Joe, Slick Willy or Obongo. Really incredible.
Narrative building and gaslighting is half the war with these folks. In this case building the narrative that this was a slam dunk elementary school reading for their side when objectively it's the opposite as you've shown. And that this is some massive consensus for their side as mr Somin tries to gaslight by his incessant posts creating the illusion of a prodem consensus when in reality they've forum shopped hard.
Yeah they'll lose the immediate battle but the Narrative will become official history in blue sky reddit and Wikipedia and the majority of corporate media and future ai engines.
What does gaslighting mean to you?
"In addition, studies show that H-1B workers actually increase wages for many US-citizen workers by increasing productivity and innovation."
Is anyone dumb enough to actually believe this?
Somin is from socialist Russia, where they don't accept the law of supply and demand.
Its rather amusing.
Housing: more supply pushes process down.
Labor: more supply pushes prices (wages) down, not up.
Productivity raises wages; slave labor imported from India on an H1B ain't productive.
Yep, a few changes here, a few there, and it'll be just like the shithole Somin left behind.
Ceteris paribus, increasing the supply of labor would push wages down. But ceteris isn't paribus. There's a fixed amount of housing demand; there is not a fixed amount of labor demand.
Somin is from socialist Russia
This is just bigotry based on national origin.
No has paid the 100k; the government hasn't asked for it as a condition of an application.
I don't think any of these parties has standing to challenge the fee.
Meanwhile, DHS has in fact filed a notice and comment to change the H1B visa lottery (crickets from Somin on this). The changes overweight high wage masters/PhD applicants and underweight those with merely a bachlelors degree in IT (the most abused category).
My company is proceeding as if the 100k is never going to happen (it isn't). In fact I think that announcement was simply air cover for the changes in the H1B visa lottery.
Thanks for the view from the ground. The proposed rules is here for those interested. Table 15 shows the estimated changes in aggregate salaries for each wage tier -- tier 1 is nearly cut in half while tier 4 nearly doubles.
The entire H1B system sucks hard. If we're going to give work visas to anyone, it should be to non-Americans who got their 4-year college degrees in the United States. In terms of cultural assimilation, having spent ages 18-22 in the United States, among other similarly aged people also in their formative years, is a much better indicator of ability to assimilate than anything else we have.