A coalition of 22 US attorneys general has urged the Trump administration to withdraw a proposed $103,265 fee on certain H-1B visa petitions, arguing that the measure exceeds federal authority and could make it harder for states to recruit teachers, doctors, nurses and other skilled professionals.
Washington, Sept 2026 : A coalition of 22 US attorneys general has opposed the Trump administration’s proposal to impose a $103,265 fee on certain H-1B visa petitions, arguing that the measure is unlawful and could aggravate shortages of skilled workers in essential sectors including education and healthcare.
The attorneys general filed a formal comment letter with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), urging the agency to withdraw the proposed rule. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined the coalition, which was co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.
The Department of Homeland Security published the proposed rule on August 25. It would establish a $103,265 fee, payable when a petition is filed, for H-1B petitions subject to the annual statutory cap, including petitions eligible for the advanced-degree exemption. The proposed charge would come on top of other applicable fees. DHS has said the measure is intended to recover part of the federal government’s costs of administering the immigration system.
The coalition, however, characterised the proposed charge as a tax and argued that the executive branch cannot impose such a tax without authorisation from Congress. The attorneys general also contend that USCIS would exceed its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
According to the coalition, the administration has not adequately justified the financial and operational burden the proposed fee could place on state and local governments. They also argued that USCIS failed to sufficiently examine alternatives that would impose fewer costs on states.
The attorneys general further challenged the 30-day public comment period, describing it as unusually short and arguing that the agency had not adequately explained why such a limited period was necessary. The official comment deadline was September 24, 2026.
The coalition warned that the proposed fee could make it harder for state and local institutions to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals. It specifically pointed to shortages affecting primary and secondary schools, hospitals and other essential public services.
“Individuals in this class are more than just names on papers - they are our teachers, doctors, nurses, caretakers, and more,” Jones said. He argued that such professionals had met US immigration requirements and contributed to local communities.
Jones also accused the Trump administration of exceeding its executive authority without adequately considering the impact on communities and public services. He said his office would use legal avenues to challenge the proposal if necessary.
The coalition further argued that the administration was attempting to revive a similar fee approach that had previously faced legal challenges. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the states believed the proposed rule again attempted to impose a tax without congressional authorisation.
The attorneys general involved in the challenge represent California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
The proposed fee has also drawn concern from healthcare organisations. The American Hospital Association said the charge could hinder hospitals and health systems from using the H-1B programme to address shortages of highly skilled healthcare workers.
The H-1B programme allows US employers to recruit foreign workers for specialty occupations that generally require specialised knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent qualification. Technology companies are major users, while hospitals, universities, schools and research institutions also depend on the programme for specialised personnel.
For Indian professionals and US employers that rely heavily on skilled foreign workers, the proposed fee has significant implications. The attorneys general’s intervention adds another major challenge to the administration’s proposal as federal officials consider public comments before deciding whether to proceed with the rule.
(Disclaimer :The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)
