WASHINGTON, D.C. Dec 14, 2025 — A coalition of 19 Democratic-led states, spearheaded by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s controversial new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, arguing it unlawfully burdens employers seeking skilled foreign workers. In a sharp rebuttal, U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer fired back on social media, accusing Democrats of “playing games with Americans’ livelihoods” and reaffirming the Department of Labor’s commitment to enforcing the policy to prioritize U.S. workers.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, targets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and claims the fee—imposed via a September presidential proclamation—exceeds congressional authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and bypasses required public rulemaking processes. The attorneys general from states including California, New York, Illinois, and Washington contend that the exorbitant charge creates an “insurmountable financial barrier” for universities, hospitals, and tech firms reliant on H-1B visas to hire experts in fields like medicine, engineering, and research.
“Oregon’s colleges, universities, and research institutions rely on skilled international workers to keep labs running, courses on track, and innovation moving forward,” Rayfield said in a statement announcing the suit. “This enormous new fee would make it nearly impossible for these institutions to hire the experts they need, and it goes far beyond what Congress ever intended—threatening Oregon’s ability to compete, educate, and grow.”
The H-1B program, established under the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations where domestic talent is scarce. Annually capped at 85,000 visas, it has long been a flashpoint in immigration debates: supporters hail it as essential for innovation and addressing labor shortages, while critics argue it undercuts American wages and displaces U.S. workers.
The fee stems from President Donald Trump’s September 19 proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which restricts H-1B entries unless petitions include a $100,000 payment—framed as a measure to curb exploitation and ensure the program supplements, rather than replaces, American labor. The policy took effect on September 21, 2025, applying prospectively to new petitions and exemptions for extensions or amendments filed beforehand. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) confirmed the fee far exceeds typical processing costs, which hover around $460 to $2,805 depending on the petition type.
Chavez-DeRemer, the 30th Secretary of Labor and a former Republican congresswoman from Oregon, responded directly to Rayfield’s announcement in an X post late Sunday, quoting his original statement and media attachments detailing the suit. “While @POTUS is taking historic action to protect the American Worker, Democrats are once again playing games with Americans’ livelihoods,” she wrote. “Let me be clear: @USDOL is committed to implementing President Trump’s Executive Order on H-1B Visas and fighting to ensure American Jobs go to AMERICAN WORKERS.”
Her post, viewed over 4,700 times within hours, drew immediate backlash from critics who accused the administration of gaslighting amid rising youth unemployment and unaddressed visa loopholes like Optional Practical Training (OPT). One reply demanded action on H-2 visas, often used for seasonal agricultural work, while others called for closing outsourcing networks exploited by tech giants. Supporters, however, praised the stance as a bold step against “foreign labor flooding.”
The suit is one of several legal challenges to the fee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business groups filed separate complaints this week, warning of “shockwaves” through industries facing talent shortages. Meanwhile, the administration has layered on additional H-1B restrictions, including enhanced social media vetting for applicants announced December 3, targeting those involved in “censorship” or content moderation roles.
Legal experts predict a protracted battle, with plaintiffs seeking an injunction to halt the fee’s enforcement. “This isn’t just about dollars—it’s about whether the executive branch can unilaterally rewrite immigration law,” said one immigration attorney not involved in the case. As the holidays approach, the dispute underscores deepening partisan rifts over workforce policy in Trump’s second term.
The case is State of Oregon et al. v. Mayorkas et al., No. 3:25-cv-01892 (D. Or.).
About The Author
