Federal Court Enjoins Implementation of White House $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Over Procedural Lapses

A federal district court in California has granted a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of a $100,000 fee imposed on certain new H-1B specialty occupation visa petitions. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California ruled that federal immigration authorities failed to follow mandatory rule-making procedures before implementing the steep financial requirement.

The lawsuit was brought by a broad coalition comprising healthcare organizations, labor unions, educational institutions, and non-profit employers challenging the administration's policy directives. This decision marks the second federal court ruling to enjoin the $100,000 surcharge, intensifying the legal battle over executive authority and immigration fees.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Immigration Law & Administrative Law

Sub-topic: Executive Power, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Specialty Occupation Visas (H-1B)

Core Legal Issue

The central legal question before the court is whether federal immigration agencies may enforce an unprecedented fee on congressionally established visa categories without conducting the notice-and-comment rulemaking mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553).

A related issue concerns whether the President's broad statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend or condition the entry of foreign nationals permits the executive branch to effectively rewrite the statutory fee schedule enacted by Congress.

What Did the Court / Authority Decide?

Judge Haywood Gilliam issued a preliminary injunction enjoining U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State from implementing and collecting the $100,000 charge for new H-1B visa petitions. The court determined that the plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on their claim that the agencies bypassed requisite regulatory procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification, holding that formal class status was unnecessary because the preliminary injunction restraining agency enforcement provides complete relief to the affected parties. The order is an interlocutory measure that halts the fee's collection while the underlying lawsuit proceeds to a full determination on the merits.

Key Legal Points

• Mandatory Rulemaking Cannot Be Bypassed: Federal administrative agencies subject to the APA must publish proposed regulatory changes and provide adequate notice-and-comment periods before enforcing substantive rules that alter obligations and rights.

• Statutory Limits on Executive Discretion: Delegated presidential authority to manage foreign entry does not confer unbounded power on agencies to bypass or displace statutory fee frameworks established by Congress.

• Agency-Wide Injunction Relieves Class Action Necessity: When a preliminary injunction directly bars federal agencies from executing an invalid policy across the board, class certification under Rule 23 is procedurally unnecessary to protect plaintiffs.

• Interlocutory Protection Against Economic Injury: The court recognized that imposing massive, unpromulgated financial barriers creates immediate operational harm for employers relying on specialized foreign talent.

Relevant Law

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA): 5 U.S.C. § 553 (informal rulemaking and public notice-and-comment requirements); 5 U.S.C. § 706 (judicial authority to set aside unlawful or procedurally defective agency action).

• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (presidential power to suspend entry of foreign nationals); 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c) (statutory provisions and fee structures for non-immigrant visas).

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 23 (class action standards) and Rule 65 (injunctive relief).

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs (Healthcare, Educational, Religious, and Labor Coalition)

The plaintiffs argued that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional and statutory mandates by implementing a prohibitive fee designed to suppress legal immigration without legislative authorization. They submitted that USCIS and the State Department violated the APA by enacting the rule immediately rather than issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking for public scrutiny. The coalition further contended that the exorbitant charge causes severe disruption to medical staffing, educational programs, and standard hiring operations.

Defendants (Federal Government & Immigration Agencies)

The government argued that the fee fell well within the executive’s sweeping authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to regulate foreign entry in the interest of the domestic labor market. Government counsel maintained that actions taken to effectuate presidential foreign affairs and national interest determinations are exempt from formal notice-and-comment obligations under statutory APA exceptions.

Why Does It Matter?

The decision delivers immediate relief to American businesses, universities, and healthcare systems that recruit international talent under the H-1B specialty occupation framework, shielding them from sudden six-figure surcharges for foreign hires entering from abroad.

Beyond employment immigration, the ruling reinforces fundamental administrative law constraints on executive governance. By aligning with an earlier ruling from a federal court in Boston that halted the charge, this decision strengthens judicial precedent holding that broad entry-suspension powers cannot be used as an end-run around federal rulemaking statutes. With related litigation proceeding before the D.C. Circuit, the case contributes to an emerging split that could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Takeaway

Federal agencies cannot invoke presidential entry powers to bypass standard notice-and-comment rulemaking when implementing sweeping fee hikes on statutory immigration categories. For employers and practitioners, the decision temporarily restores standard filing procedures for new overseas H-1B petitions while full judicial review continues.

Sources

Primary Source:

• Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., September 30, 2026).

Additional Sources:

• Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706.

• Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f), 1184.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (pending docket).