White House, Courts & Business
Second Federal Judge Blocks $100,000 Fee for New H-1B Visas
The Oakland ruling focuses on agency procedure and leaves a separate proposed permanent fee on a different legal track.
A second injunction
A federal judge in Oakland on September 30 blocked the administration's $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas, the second court to halt the policy. Reuters reported that U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam concluded that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department had not followed required rulemaking procedures. The order grants interim relief while a lawsuit brought by unions, employers and nonprofit organizations continues; it is not a final nationwide resolution of every dispute over H-1B fees.
Procedure drives the ruling
The case illustrates an important feature of administrative law: even when an agency may possess authority over a program, it generally must use the process Congress prescribed. Notice, an explanation of legal authority, consideration of public comments and a reasoned record can be decisive. The plaintiffs challenged the sudden presidential fee as an end run around those requirements. The administration may appeal, defend the policy on the merits or rely on a separate rulemaking already underway.
A parallel permanent proposal
The Department of Homeland Security moved in August toward a permanent fee of roughly $103,000. Because that proposal follows a regulatory process, it will raise questions different from those in the current injunctions. Future challengers could contest the agency's statutory authority, economic analysis or response to comments rather than only the absence of rulemaking. Keeping the two tracks separate prevents a temporary order against one instrument from being mistaken for a final decision on the other.
Business and worker effects
The H-1B program permits employers to hire workers in specialty occupations and is especially important to technology, research and professional services. Reuters notes an annual cap of 65,000 visas plus 20,000 for workers with advanced U.S. degrees. A six-figure charge would dramatically change recruiting economics, particularly for smaller employers, universities and nonprofits. Supporters say higher costs deter abuse; opponents say they reduce access to specialized talent and introduce planning uncertainty.
What comes next
The Oakland injunction follows a June order in a separate Boston case, which an appeals court declined to pause in July. A third challenge from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also moving through the courts. The administration's immediate options include appeal and further regulatory work. Employers should distinguish between a blocked fee, ordinary visa charges and any future final rule. The controlling obligations can change as courts and agencies act, so dated official guidance matters more than generalized summaries.
Reporting note: This article draws on public records and verified reporting; material claims are attributed in the text.