• A coalition of unions, universities, health care providers, and religious groups filed lawsuits in San Francisco challenging the $100,000 H-1B visa fee.
• Plaintiffs contend the president cannot rewrite the H-1B program and invoke a vague “national-interest” exemption to impose the new charge.
• Analysts warn the policy could affect health care, education, technology, and global talent pipelines, particularly given India’s large share of H-1B beneficiaries.
• The administration defends the measure as a one-time step to curb abuse and protect American wages, while opponents cite procedural flaws and potential chaos.

A wave of lawsuits was filed in federal court in San Francisco on Friday challenging President Trump’s proclamation that would impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas. A coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups — including the United Auto Workers and the American Association of University Professors — argued that the president’s power to restrict entry does not permit him to override the law that created the H-1B program. These claims are reflected in coverage from Reuters, Al Jazeera, and IndiaTimes, which described the suit as the first challenge to the proclamation. according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, and indiatimes.

The administration has framed the rule as a one-time charge for new H-1B applicants, with the proclamation issued on September 19 and reportedly enforced just 36 hours later. Opponents have argued the move is unconstitutional and that the “pay-to-play” structure undermines a statutory framework created by Congress. In court filings, plaintiffs say the proclamation permits arbitrary enforcement and bypasses proper rulemaking. Legal arguments about the authority to impose such fees and the procedural basis for the order are echoed in reporting from Reuters, IndiaTimes, Times of India (education desk), and The Hill, which also notes the White House description of the fee as a one-time measure. “The Proclamation transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either ‘pay to play’ or seek a ‘national interest’ exemption,” the suit states, a phrase cited by Times of India coverage. according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, indiatimes, indiatimes (education), lemonde, thehill.

Analysts and advocacy groups say the protest hinges on the scope of presidential authority and the integrity of the visa system. The suit asserts that the proclamation “defies Congress,” creates a market-wide penalty, and opens opportunities for selective enforcement and corruption. Coverage detailing the plaintiffs’ concerns and the potential impact on communities nationwide appears across Reuters, Al Jazeera, and IndiaTimes, with additional context from Le Monde and The Hill’s reporting on broader implications for policy and governance. according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, indiatimes, indiatimes (education), lemonde, thehill.

Observers note the debate extends beyond the United States, with India historically accounting for a large share of H-1B beneficiaries and the program described as essential for sectors from healthcare to tech. Le Monde reports the system awards about 85,000 visas annually, with India accounting for roughly 71% of approvals, while IndiaTimes coverage points to similar dynamics about India’s dominant role in H-1B sourcing. The Hill also highlights that about a third of H-1B workers are in fields like nursing and teaching, underscoring potential broad effects. Taken together, these sources illustrate how the policy shift could reshape global talent flows and the US economy. according to lemonde, thehill, indiatimes (education), indiatimes, indiatimes (cross-section), thehill, Reuters, Al Jazeera.

As litigation unfolds, the case tests the balance between executive action and Congressional authority over a program designed to attract highly skilled workers. The lawsuits seek an injunction blocking the proclamation and restoring the pre-existing fee structure for new H-1B petitions while the case proceeds. Legal coverage from Reuters, The Hill, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, and IndiaTimes together describes the procedural and substantive questions at stake, including arguments about the Administrative Procedure Act and the potential disruption to hospitals, universities, and tech firms. according to Reuters, thehill, Al Jazeera, lemonde, indiatimes.