Only 70 employers have paid the $100,000 H-1B fee introduced by the Trump administration, raising questions about its intended purpose, as revealed in a recent court hearing.
A legal battle in an Oakland courtroom regarding President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on certain H-1B workers has taken an unexpected turn. During a recent hearing, a government attorney disclosed that only around 70 employers have paid this fee thus far, according to Bloomberg.
This increased fee applies to H-1B workers hired from outside the United States and was introduced through a White House proclamation in September 2025 as part of a broader immigration crackdown.
During the hearing, the government’s counsel highlighted the limited number of companies that have complied with the fee, suggesting that this statistic speaks volumes about the policy’s effectiveness and intent.
Tiberius Davis, an attorney with the Department of Justice, argued that the small number of employers paying the $100,000 fee undermines claims that the policy serves as a revenue-generating measure. He suggested that if the fee were truly intended to raise funds, the participation numbers would be significantly higher.
“The small number of fee payers goes to show it’s not a tax because it’s not raising revenue,” Davis stated, as reported by Bloomberg.
This legal debate unfolds at a critical moment, particularly following a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the Trump administration’s global tariffs framework. The Court ruled that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to impose taxes.
In light of this ruling, the government has maintained that the H-1B fee is not intended to generate revenue and therefore does not require the explicit approval from Congress that a tax would necessitate.
The lawsuit in Oakland was initiated by Global Nurse Force, a nurse recruitment company, along with other plaintiffs who argue that the $100,000 H-1B fee effectively excludes small employers from participating in the specialty occupation visa program.
The H-1B program allows U.S. companies to employ skilled foreign professionals for specialized roles. According to the plaintiffs, the steep fee renders participation financially unfeasible for smaller businesses.
Global Nurse Force has expanded on its challenge by asserting that Congress only authorized immigration fees to cover the administrative costs of visa programs, not to create financial barriers. The lawsuit characterizes the $100,000 charge as “arbitrary and capricious,” alleging that the government circumvented the notice and comment process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Attorneys opposing the fee argue that the recent Supreme Court ruling strengthens their case. Esther Sung, legal director at the Justice Action Center and counsel for the plaintiffs, emphasized that the Court has clarified that the distinction between regulatory fees and revenue measures cannot be used to evade constitutional limits.
“The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress delegates discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it must do so clearly,” she stated. “That delegation has to be expressed.”
Sung also referenced the decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which reaffirmed the principle that the authority to levy taxes resides with Congress, not the executive branch.
In response, Davis countered in court, arguing that the fee was established through a presidential proclamation rather than an executive order, placing it outside the purview of review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The hearing took place at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. While the judge did not make a ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction or their motion for class certification, he rejected the government’s request to pause the case while a related matter is under appeal in Washington.
Judge Gilliam also instructed both parties to submit additional written arguments addressing how the Supreme Court’s recent tariffs decision might impact the legal questions surrounding the H-1B fee.
The implications of this ongoing legal battle could significantly affect the future of the H-1B program and the ability of small businesses to participate in it, as the court weighs the arguments presented by both sides.
According to Bloomberg, the outcome of this case could set important precedents regarding the authority of the executive branch in imposing fees and the constitutional limits on such actions.