Now Reading: Second US judge blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee
-
01
Second US judge blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee
A second US federal judge has blocked US President Donald Trump's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas. US District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California, ruled on Wednesday, 30 September, that US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department failed to follow required rule-making procedures before imposing the charge.
Gilliam granted a request from a coalition of unions, employers and nonprofit groups to halt the fee while their case proceeds. The ruling follows a separate block by a federal judge in Boston in June, which a Boston appeals court upheld in July. The $100,000 fee, originally set to expire on 21 September, was extended by the White House through September 2027.
The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a third lawsuit challenging the fee. The Department of Homeland Security has separately proposed making a roughly $103,000 fee permanent through formal rule-making, which could face its own legal challenges. For Indian professionals, who account for about 70 per cent of H-1B approvals, the rulings leave the future cost of new visas uncertain.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Times of India frames the ruling as a 'legal setback for Trump', emphasising procedural failures by the agencies and citing the separate Boston block and Chamber of Commerce lawsuit. Times Now leads with what the ruling means for Indians, spotlighting that Indians account for about 70 per cent of H-1B approvals. Both sources cover the same core facts and differ only in emphasis: Times Now adds a Democratic appointee label for the judge and quotes a left-leaning legal group, while Times of India provides more detail on the administration's appeal and the proposed permanent fee. The uniform bottom line is that the fee remains blocked in two circuits, with litigation and a separate rule-making still unresolved.
The Department of Homeland Security's proposed permanent fee of about $103,000, pursued through formal rule-making, will likely face separate legal challenges and could become the next flashpoint.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), timesnownews.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
