H-1B $100,000 fee case: Plaintiffs push for summary judgment, Trump administration seeks pause
Advertisement
Washington, Oct 28 : Employers and workers challenging the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions have asked a federal court in California to move quickly towards a final ruling, while the government wants the case put on hold until an appeals court rules.
In their joint case management statement in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, filed on October 20, the plaintiffs said they “challenge the lawfulness of a $100,000 payment requirement as a condition of processing H-1B visa petitions and entry into the United States.”
On September 30, Judge Gilliam granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, denied the government’s motion to dismiss and denied class certification without prejudice.
The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 9 and the same day moved to stay the district court proceedings. That stay motion is set for a hearing on January 14, 2027, according to the filing.
The plaintiffs proposed that the government produce the administrative record by November 3.
“Plaintiffs are monitoring Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s September 30, 2026 order and may seek enforcement of the order if warranted,” the statement said.
The government argued that going ahead now would be wasteful. “Defendants maintain that further motions practice is inappropriate while the Ninth Circuit considers threshold jurisdictional issues,” it said.
It proposed that the record be produced only 30 days after the appeals court’s mandate, or 30 days after any order denying the stay.
The government also pointed to a separate ruling in Massachusetts. “The outcome of this case will not change any status quo given the universal injunction entered in the District of Massachusetts,” it said, adding that further litigation “only wastes the Parties’ and Court’s resources, and might well result in a duplicative appeal.”
The filing lists two other pending appeals on the fee: California v. Mullin in the First Circuit and Chamber of Commerce v. DHS in the District of Columbia Circuit, which was argued on March 9, 2026.
The principal legal issues, the parties said, are whether the President’s proclamation and its extensions are “ultra vires”, and whether the actions of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to implement it violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
President Donald Trump imposed the fee through Proclamation 10973, signed on September 19, 2025. He extended it with Proclamation 11069 on September 18, 2026.
The plaintiffs are represented by groups including the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward, the South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO) and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
In their joint case management statement in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, filed on October 20, the plaintiffs said they “challenge the lawfulness of a $100,000 payment requirement as a condition of processing H-1B visa petitions and entry into the United States.”
On September 30, Judge Gilliam granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, denied the government’s motion to dismiss and denied class certification without prejudice.
The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 9 and the same day moved to stay the district court proceedings. That stay motion is set for a hearing on January 14, 2027, according to the filing.
The plaintiffs proposed that the government produce the administrative record by November 3.
“Plaintiffs are monitoring Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s September 30, 2026 order and may seek enforcement of the order if warranted,” the statement said.
The government argued that going ahead now would be wasteful. “Defendants maintain that further motions practice is inappropriate while the Ninth Circuit considers threshold jurisdictional issues,” it said.
It proposed that the record be produced only 30 days after the appeals court’s mandate, or 30 days after any order denying the stay.
The government also pointed to a separate ruling in Massachusetts. “The outcome of this case will not change any status quo given the universal injunction entered in the District of Massachusetts,” it said, adding that further litigation “only wastes the Parties’ and Court’s resources, and might well result in a duplicative appeal.”
The filing lists two other pending appeals on the fee: California v. Mullin in the First Circuit and Chamber of Commerce v. DHS in the District of Columbia Circuit, which was argued on March 9, 2026.
The principal legal issues, the parties said, are whether the President’s proclamation and its extensions are “ultra vires”, and whether the actions of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to implement it violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
President Donald Trump imposed the fee through Proclamation 10973, signed on September 19, 2025. He extended it with Proclamation 11069 on September 18, 2026.
The plaintiffs are represented by groups including the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward, the South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO) and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
Advertisement