H-1B $100,000 fee case: Plaintiffs seek summary judgment, Trump admin pushes for pause

• Employers and workers challenging the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee have urged a California federal court to move towards a final ruling

• The administration has sought to pause proceedings until the Ninth Circuit rules on its appeal, arguing that continuing litigation would waste resources

• The case questions the legality of the fee and its implementation, with similar challenges pending in other US federal courts

Employers and workers challenging the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions have urged a federal court in California to move towards a final ruling, while the government has sought to suspend proceedings pending an appeal.

In a joint case management statement filed on 20 October in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the plaintiffs challenged the legality of the $100,000 payment requirement imposed as a condition for processing H-1B visa petitions and entry into the United States.

The dispute follows a 30 September ruling by US district judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., who partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, rejected the government’s motion to dismiss and denied class certification without prejudice.

The Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 9 October and, on the same day, asked the district court to pause further proceedings. According to the filing, a hearing on the government’s stay request is scheduled for 14 January 2027.

The plaintiffs have proposed that the government submit the administrative record by 3 November, arguing for progress towards resolving the case while the appeal remains pending.

They also said they were monitoring the government’s compliance with the 30 September order and could seek enforcement if necessary.

The administration, however, argued that continuing litigation at this stage would be inefficient while the Ninth Circuit considers preliminary jurisdictional questions.

Under the government’s proposal, the administrative record would be submitted within 30 days of the appeals court issuing its mandate or within 30 days of an order denying the request to stay proceedings.

The administration also cited a separate ruling by a federal court in Massachusetts, which it said had already issued a nationwide injunction addressing the fee.

According to the government, the existing injunction means the outcome of the California case would not change the current situation. It argued that proceeding with the litigation could waste judicial and legal resources and potentially lead to a duplicative appeal.

The filing also identifies two other pending legal challenges to the fee: California v. Mullin before the First Circuit and Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, which was argued before the District of Columbia Circuit on 9 March 2026.

The central issues include whether President Donald Trump exceeded his legal authority in issuing the proclamation and its subsequent extensions, and whether the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act while implementing the measure.

Trump introduced the fee through Proclamation 10973, signed on 19 September 2025. The requirement was subsequently extended through Proclamation 11069, signed on 18 September 2026.

The plaintiffs are represented by several organisations, including the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward, the South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO) and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

The case is part of a broader legal battle over the administration’s H-1B fee policy, with multiple challenges proceeding in federal courts across the United States.

With IANS inputs