Wire flash
Second Federal Court Blocks Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, Citing APA Violation
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
On October 1, 2026, the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications in Global Nurse Force v. Trump. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. found the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the administration failed to conduct required 'notice and comment' rule-making. This is the second federal court to block the policy; a Massachusetts district court had previously ruled against it in June 2026 on grounds that it usurped Congress's power to tax, also finding an APA violation. The earlier ruling already blocks the fee, and the First Circuit refused to stay it, so the new decision has no immediate impact. However, the author, writing for Reason Magazine, notes the second ruling is significant because it provides an alternative legal pathway to victory for plaintiffs. The author, who is not an APA expert, expresses hope that appellate courts will uphold the rulings and mentions plans to file an amicus brief supporting the Massachusetts decision in the First Circuit.
Source report
Yesterday, in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision blocking the Trump Administration's $100,000 fee on applications for H-1B visas. These visas are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers with specialized skills.
Federal District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. ruled that the imposition of the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, the administration failed to go through "notice and comment" rule-making as required by the Act.
Second Court, Different Grounds
This marks the second district court ruling against the $100,000 fee. The first ruling, issued in June by a federal district court in Massachusetts, relied in part on different grounds:
- It held that the fee constitutes a usurpation of Congress's power to tax
- It found that relevant federal statutes do not delegate that taxing power to the executive branch
- It also determined that the fee violates the APA
Significance of the New Ruling
Because the earlier Massachusetts ruling already blocks the $100,000 fee—and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to stay that decision—the new California ruling does not have any immediate practical impact.
However, the decision is significant for two reasons:
- A second federal court has ruled against the policy, reinforcing judicial opposition
- It relies on a different legal rationale, providing an alternative pathway for plaintiffs
This dual basis for invalidation suggests that appellate courts—and potentially the Supreme Court—might rule the same way. As is sometimes the case, different legal arguments may appeal to different judges. From the perspective of plaintiffs challenging the fee, having multiple potential pathways to victory strengthens their position.
Looking Ahead
The author notes they are not an APA expert and will not attempt a detailed analysis of yesterday's decision. However, they express hope that appellate courts will ultimately uphold these district court rulings. The Cato Institute, Professor Michael McConnell, and the author plan to file an amicus brief supporting affirmance of the Massachusetts decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The author previously criticized the $100,000 H-1B fee on both legal and policy grounds in earlier articles.
Source
Reason MagazineWestern