In a significant legal development, the US District Court for the Northern District of California has blocked President Donald Trump’s imposition of a $100,000 fee on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. This decision marks the second federal court injunction against the policy, which critics argue was enacted without proper congressional authorization. The injunction was welcomed by groups affected by the rule, including healthcare and educational organizations, underscoring the role of H-1B workers in sectors experiencing shortages, such as healthcare and education.
Judge Haywood Gilliam’s decision followed a complaint that the administration’s move violated procedural norms and overstepped delegated powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security must engage in proper notice-and-comment rulemaking as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act. This requirement aims to ensure that policies impacting small businesses receive adequate analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The administration initially introduced the fee through a presidential proclamation in September 2025, asserting concerns over the H-1B program’s susceptibility to displacing American workers and threatening economic stability. However, courts have consistently pushed back against these arguments, with the recent ruling following a similar one from a federal court in Massachusetts in June 2026. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that previous block, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in maintaining checks on executive power.
The court’s decision comes in the context of a proposal by the Department of Homeland Security to enact a comparable fee structure through regulatory channels. Despite extending the original proclamation and its contentious fees for another year, Trump’s administration faces ongoing legal scrutiny and pressure to adhere to established rulemaking processes. Both business and community leaders contend that such regulatory actions could destabilize sectors heavily reliant on skilled foreign labor, impacting productivity and growth.
This legal battle highlights broader tensions in the US immigration landscape, where policy shifts can have immediate and profound effects on workers and industries. By requiring transparent rulemaking processes, the judiciary reaffirms the importance of procedural justice in shaping immigration policy.