Court Examines Legality of $100,000 H-1B Fee in Global Nurse Force v. Trump
Hearing Held February 26, 2026
Source : Global Nurse Force et al v. Trump et al
Global Nurse Force V. Trump, Lawsuit Challenging New H-1B Restrictions, and $100,000 Fee
https://www.globalnurseforce.com/blogs/the-100k-h-1b-visa-fee-hike-threatens-to-cripple-americas-healthcare-system/
A federal court heard arguments today in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, a case challenging the legality of the $100,000 fee imposed on certain H-1B employers. The hearing focused on constitutional authority, administrative law questions, and the practical impact of the fee on healthcare employers.
Low Employer Participation Raises Key Questions
During the hearing, the government revealed that only about 70 employers have paid the $100,000 fee since it took effect in September.
The government argued that this limited uptake demonstrates the measure is not designed as a revenue-raising tax.
Plaintiffs countered that the low participation proves the opposite: that the fee has effectively shut down the program for all but the largest and wealthiest employers, particularly affecting healthcare providers seeking foreign-trained nurses.
Supreme Court Tariff Decision Looms Large
A significant portion of the discussion centered on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which restricted presidential authority to impose tariffs without clear congressional authorization.
Plaintiffs argued that the $100,000 H-1B fee functions as a “human tariff,” placing a financial barrier on foreign labor in a way that mirrors the constitutional concerns addressed in that case. They contended that Congress, not the President, holds the authority to impose such sweeping financial conditions.
The government maintained that the fee falls within executive authority and does not violate separation-of-powers principles.
Alleged Discriminatory Structure of the Fee
The court also examined the structure of the fee itself.
Plaintiffs highlighted that the charge applies primarily to nurses entering the United States through consular processing. Meanwhile, certain technology workers already present in the U.S. on student visas can avoid the fee by applying for a change of status.
According to plaintiffs, this distinction disproportionately burdens the healthcare sector and lacks a rational basis.
Motion to Stay Denied
In a procedural development, Judge Gilliam denied the government’s motion to stay the case. The government had requested a pause pending a ruling in a related matter before a court in Washington, D.C.
The judge indicated his intention to move forward independently and expeditiously.
Administrative Procedure Act Debate
Another key issue was whether the Presidential Proclamation establishing the fee is shielded from review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government argued that actions taken directly by presidential proclamation are not subject to APA challenges.
Plaintiffs responded that while the proclamation may originate from the President, its implementation by agencies such as USCIS and the Department of State remains reviewable by the courts.
Next Steps
The judge has taken the matter under advisement and ordered supplemental briefs to be filed by Monday.
A ruling is widely expected before March 4, the scheduled opening of H-1B registration.