Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and a coalition of other states filed a federal lawsuit Friday, Dec. 12, challenging the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H‑1B visa petitions, calling the policy unlawful and harmful to employers, essential services, and the broader U.S. economy.
According to the California attorney general’s office, the lawsuit alleges that the fee exceeds the authority granted by Congress, violates statutory limits on visa fees, and was implemented without the required notice‑and‑comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contends that the fee, announced in September 2025, dramatically increases costs for employers seeking to hire highly skilled foreign workers through the H‑1B program. H‑1B visas allow U.S. companies, universities, hospitals and other organizations to recruit professionals such as physicians, researchers, nurses and teachers in specialty occupations.
According to Reuters reporting, employers have traditionally paid between roughly $2,000 and $5,000 in fees to process H‑1B petitions, making the new $100,000 charge vastly disproportionate.
“This enormous fee would make it nearly impossible for these institutions to hire the experts they need, and it goes far beyond what Congress ever intended,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a public statement. According to a press release from the Oregon Department of Justice, Rayfield’s office warned that the fee threatens education, health care and research sectors by creating unnecessary barriers for employers who rely on H‑1B talent.
The coalition includes attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, according to publicly released filings. According to coalition materials, this lawsuit is one of at least three legal challenges to the fee; separate suits have also been filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business and labor groups arguing that the fee is unlawful and beyond the executive branch’s authority.
Critics warn that the fee could worsen existing labor shortages in critical fields. According to reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle, nearly 30,000 educators and roughly 17,000 health care professionals held H‑1B visas in 2024, helping fill gaps in teaching, research and medical care that U.S.-trained workers alone cannot address.
Opponents argue that by imposing such a steep cost, the administration is effectively curtailing the ability of smaller public institutions, nonprofits and startups to compete for global talent, undermining educational and health care outcomes in both urban and rural communities.
“Trump’s illegal attempt to undermine this visa program would disrupt our children’s education and hurt our economy.”
For example, rural health providers have reported difficulty hiring foreign‑trained specialists because of the increased cost barrier imposed by the fee. According to reporting in The Washington Post, rural clinics that depend on foreign professionals say the high cost deters them from recruiting needed talent.
Supporters of the fee defend it as an effort to curb misuse of the visa system and protect American workers, but business and labor advocates counter that foreign talent is essential to filling critical shortages and maintaining U.S. competitiveness in science, technology, engineering and medicine.
In addition to legal challenges from states and business groups, immigration advocates have highlighted broader workforce impacts. Large tech companies, especially those based in Silicon Valley, have previously argued that high visa fees and restrictions threaten innovation and economic growth because they rely heavily on H‑1B workers to fill specialized roles.
According to Business Insider reporting, the fee would apply even to employers such as universities and hospitals that often are exempt from annual cap limits, exacerbating staffing challenges.
Other strains on immigration
The lawsuit comes amid other federal immigration policy changes affecting foreign workers. On Dec. 5, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it will reduce the maximum validity period for certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), work permits, to 18 months for specific immigrant categories, including refugees, asylees, and many individuals with pending adjustment‑of‑status applications.
Advocates say the change could lead to increased renewal burdens, higher administrative costs, and potential gaps in lawful work authorization if processing delays occur, especially because USCIS has also ended automatic employment authorization extensions for many categories.
While some temporary rules once extended work authorization during renewals up to 540 days, those protections largely expire for new applications filed after late 2025, creating added uncertainty for workers and employers alike. According to reporting on USCIS policy changes, these combined shifts could disrupt workforce planning and key services.
State officials and industry advocates warn that the fee and EAD changes may have ripple effects on economic competitiveness and workforce stability. Employers who rely on foreign talent, particularly in sectors like technology, higher education, medicine and scientific research, say they may be forced to reduce hiring or shift operations abroad if it becomes too costly or uncertain to recruit internationally.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office is part of the coalition, said in a public statement that the Trump administration’s “illegal attempt to undermine this visa program would disrupt our children’s education and hurt our economy,” adding that the fee contravenes both the intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act and required regulatory procedures.
According to Forbes reporting, James joined fellow attorneys general in emphasizing that the fee imposes unwarranted barriers that could jeopardize access to critical services nationwide.
What’s next
The coalition seeks a federal court order declaring the $100,000 fee unlawful and an injunction blocking its enforcement while the case proceeds. If successful, a ruling could halt the fee’s implementation for new H‑1B petitions and clarify the limits of executive authority over immigration policy.
Employers, immigrant communities and advocacy groups are watching closely as judicial proceedings unfold. The outcome could have significant implications not only for foreign‑born workers and their families, but also for the industries and public services that depend on skilled international talent.
Jasmine McBride welcomes reader responses at jmcbride@spokesman-recorder.com.