Photo via Reason

Second Federal Court Rules Against Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Somin, I. (2026, October 1). Second Federal Court Rules Against Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/01/second-federal-court-rules-against-trumps-100000-h-1b-visa-fee/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-01 · by Ilya Somin

Quick Summary

Federal District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr., in the Northern District of California, has ruled against the Trump administration's proposed $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act due to insufficient notice and comment rule-making procedures. This decision follows a similar ruling by a federal court in Massachusetts in June, which also blocked the fee on grounds that it usurps Congress’s power to tax and violates the APA. The California judge's decision adds weight to the challenge against the administration's policy but does not immediately alter its implementation due to an existing block from the earlier Massachusetts ruling.
Written by AI on 2026-10-01, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

On September 30, a second US federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s proposed US$100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department did not follow necessary rule-making procedures before implementing the fee. This decision aligns with a previous ruling from June by a federal judge in Boston who also halted the same fee due to similar procedural issues. The coalition challenging the fee includes unions, employers, and nonprofits arguing that the agencies violated US administrative law by failing to engage in proper notice-and-comment rulemaking processes before imposing such a high cost on new visa applications.

Written for “H1B Visa Fee Blocked” on 2026-11-05, grounded in this article and the 2 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 H1B Visa Fee Blocked
Politics · 3 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 13% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Second judge blocks Trump’s US$100,000 fee for new H-1B worker visas Same event
The Straits Times
⚖️ Leans right further right than this Hedges 1 of 20 claims Outlet record 66/100
Legal setback for Trump: Second judge halts $100,000 H-1B visa fee Same event
Times of India
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 4 of 33 claims Outlet record 59/100
'H-1B programme is completely broken': JD Vance backs scrapping visa system Different event
Times of India
Hedges 0 of 15 claims Outlet record 59/100
“The articles describe different events: one is about a court ruling against Trump's H-1B visa fee, while the other is about JD Vance's criticism of the H-1B visa program.”
Nonimmigrant visas in flux due to Trump administration fees Different event
Washington Examiner
Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 69/100
“Article A describes the signing and implementation of an executive order imposing a $100,000 fee on H-1B visas, while Article B reports on a federal court ruling that blocks this fee.”
Trump's plan to fine illegal migrants $1.8M EACH blocked by Clinton-appointed judge Different event
Daily Mail
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 0 of 16 claims Outlet record 69/100
“The articles describe two different court rulings against Trump administration policies: one about H-1B visa fees and another about fines for illegal migrants.”
A nation is more than a labor market Different event
Washington Examiner
Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 69/100
“Article A describes the second court ruling against Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee in California, while Article B discusses the initial imposition and previous rulings on the same fee but does not detail the specific event covered in Article A.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
15
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
13%
2 of 15 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
3
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-01 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1146 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)
2026-10-02
Would a Firing Squad Have Been More 'Humane' for Christa Pike?
2026-09-26
"I Will Not Stand for Being Jerked Around … by Any Lawyer Who Practices Before Me"
2026-09-18
New Article: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections: Bringing Clarity To The Necessary and Proper Clause
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Ilya Somin
30 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 I address a variety of counterarguments, including claims that voting for a lesser evil makes you morally complicit in that candidate's wrongdoing, arguments that it's better to cast a "protest vote" for a candidate that has no chance of winning, arguments based on the very low probability that your vote will be decisive, and more.
2026-11-03 · assertive framing · The Logic of Voting for a Lesser Evil - and Other Writings on the Ethics of Voting
🔮 If Section 338 is still valid and does grant the kind of nearly unlimited authority Trump claims, that would violate the constitutional "nondelegation" doctrine, which restricts delegation of legislative power to the executive…
2026-11-02 · assertive framing · My New Dispatch Article on the Legal Case Against Trump's Section 338 Tariffs Targeting Canadian Imports
🔮 Today, in United States v. Alaska, federal district Judge Sharon Gleason ruled against the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska Senate election results on the grounds that doing so might be necessary to prevent "voter confusion" caused by the presence of two candidates with very similar names on the ballot.
2026-11-01 · assertive framing · Federal Court Rejects Trump Lawsuit Seeking to Block Certification of Alaska Senate Election Results
🔮 In the original series, the Klingons and Romulans are mostly depicted as evil and irreconcilable enemies of the Federation, in TNG the Klingons have become allies and there is hope that there will be peace with the Romulans, as well.
2026-10-31 · assertive framing · Sir Patrick Stewart, RIP
🔮 But I have a few additions and caveats that I will append after quoting a few key passages from Dan's post.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · A Libertarian Perspective on the 2026 Election
🔮 I would add, as I did in this article, that invocations of emergency powers should be subject to nondeferential judicial review, to ensure that they are used only in the event of genuine emergencies, not bogus ones.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · New Brennan Center Report on Curbing Executive Power
🔮 Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second.
2026-10-29 · assertive framing · Creating Voter Confusion About Candidates' Names is Bad - But Exploiting Voter Ignorance About Policy Issues is a Much Bigger Problem
🔮 It also adopts a properly restrictive definition of "rebellion" (which is one of the conditions that might justify federalization of the National Guard).
2026-10-26 · assertive framing · Ninth Circuit Rules Trump Illegally Federalized National Guard in Los Angeles
🔮 Today, the Trump Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Alaska Senate election results on the grounds they might be influenced by voter "confusion" between incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and a separate Republican candidate with a very similar name (Dan L. Sullivan).
2026-10-23 · assertive framing · Trump Sues to Block Alaska Senate Election Results Because of Potential Voter "Confusion"
🔮 And I think he actually agrees with me more than the framing of his post might suggest.
2026-10-17 · assertive framing · Who Should Defend Democracy?
Also by Ilya Somin
The Logic of Voting for a Lesser Evil - and Other Writings on the Ethics of Voting
2026-11-03 · Reason
My New Dispatch Article on the Legal Case Against Trump's Section 338 Tariffs Targeting Canadian Imports
2026-11-02 · Reason
Trump Is Using a Trade Law Relic to Illegally Punish Canada
2026-11-02 · The Dispatch
Federal Court Rejects Trump Lawsuit Seeking to Block Certification of Alaska Senate Election Results
2026-11-01 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 30 articles by Ilya Somin →

Topics

APA Global Nurse Force v. Trump Massachusetts the Northern District of California the US District Court

Subjects

Massachusetts GPE · 3× Congress ORG · 1× Global Nurse Force v. Trump ORG · 1× Haywood Gilliam, Jr. PERSON · 1× the First Circuit ORG · 1× the Northern District of California GPE · 1× the Supreme Court ORG · 1× the Trump Administration's ORG · 1× the US Court of Appeals ORG · 1× the US District Court ORG · 1×

Narrative

Yesterday, in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the US 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 (which are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers with various specialized skills).
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-01
🔮 That suggests appellate courts (and, ultimately, perhaps, the Supreme Court) might rule the same way.
2026-10-01 · Reason
Second Federal Court Rules Against Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee · assertive framing

Claims (15 extracted, 2 hedged)

Yesterday, in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the US 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 (which are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers with various specialized skills). asserted
which → issue → skills
Federal district Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. ruled that the imposition of the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because, among other things, the administration failed to go through "notice and comment" rule-making as required by the Act. asserted
administration → rule → Act
The first one, issued in June by a federal district court in Massachusetts, relied in part on different grounds. asserted
one → issue → grounds
It held that the imposition of the fee is a usurpation of Congress's power to tax, and that the relevant federal statutes do not delegate that power. asserted
statutes → hold → power
I agree with the earlier ruling, which I wrote about in detail here. asserted
I → agree → detail
The Massachusetts decision also held that imposition of the fee violates the APA. asserted
imposition → hold → APA
Because the earlier ruling already blocks imposition of the $100,000 fee and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to stay the , the new decision does not have any immediate impact. asserted
decision → block → impact
But it is nonetheless significant that a second federal court has ruled against the policy, and on a different ground. asserted
court → rule → ground
That suggests appellate courts (and, ultimately, perhaps, the Supreme Court) might rule the same way. uncertain
courts → suggest → ?
As is sometimes the case, different arguments might appeal to different judges. uncertain
arguments → appeal → judges
From the perspective of plaintiffs challenging the fee, it helps that they have multiple potential pathways to victory. asserted
they → challenge → victory
I will not attempt analyze yesterday's decision in detail because I am not an APA expert. asserted
I → attempt → detail
So I will conclude by noting that I hope appellate courts will ultimately uphold these district court rulings. asserted
courts → conclude → rulings
The Cato Institute, Prof. Michael McConnell and I plan to file an amicus brief supporting affirmance of the Massachusetts decision, in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. asserted
Institute → plan → Circuit
I previously criticized the $100,000 H-1B fee on both legal and policy grounds here, here, and here. asserted
I → criticize → grounds
💬Give feedback · no sign-in needed

No sign-in needed for now. Your note is sent without a name, so it cannot be answered.

🕘History 🎫Support
Terms · Privacy · beta v2.0.0
Articles to 5 Nov 2026