Case: Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump et al.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-08454
Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California
Overview
On October 3, 2025, a coalition of labor unions, universities, health care providers, and religious organizations filed a major federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging President Donald Trump's September 19 proclamation that imposes a $100,000 “entry fee” on each new H-1B visa application. The case—brought under the Administrative Procedure Act—seeks to block what plaintiffs describe as an “unlawful and unprecedented” attempt by the executive branch to override Congress's carefully crafted statutory scheme governing the H-1B program.
Parties Involved
The plaintiffs include:
- Global Nurse Force, a California-based health care staffing company that places international nurses in U.S. hospitals;
- United Auto Workers International Union and Local 4811, representing tens of thousands of university employees and researchers;
- Service Employees International Union (CIR), representing medical residents and fellows nationwide;
- American Association of University Professors;
- Global Village Academy Collaborative, a Colorado public charter school network;
- Multiple religious organizations, including the Society of the Divine Word – Chicago Province, Fathers of St. Charles, and Church on the Hill (Algood First Baptist);
- Individual plaintiffs such as Pastor John Smith and Phoenix Doe, a postdoctoral researcher whose H-1B petition was halted by the new fee.
Defendants include President Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its sub-agencies (USCIS and CBP), the U.S. Department of State, and their respective leaders, including Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Core Legal Claims
The complaint argues that the President's September 19 Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specifically, plaintiffs assert:
1. Separation of Powers Violation: The President lacks constitutional authority to impose fees or raise revenue—those powers belong to Congress.
2. Statutory Overreach: Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA allow temporary entry restrictions for national security reasons, not to rewrite domestic visa policy or levy a massive $100,000 payment requirement.
3. Administrative Procedure Act Violations: Federal agencies implemented the fee without notice-and-comment rulemaking and acted arbitrarily by failing to consider the economic and human impact on hospitals, schools, churches, and small businesses.
Why It Matters
If allowed to stand, the Proclamation would transform the H-1B program from a merit-based visa pathway into a “pay-to-play” system accessible only to wealthiest employers. Currently, statutory and regulatory fees for H-1B petitions range from $2,000 to $7,595 depending on employer size and petition type — a fraction of the new $100,000 fee. According to the complaint, this extraordinary burden would devastate critical sectors already experiencing labor shortages:
- Health Care: Hospitals and clinics depend on foreign doctors and nurses to fill vacancies in rural and underserved areas.
- Education: Universities and K-12 districts rely on H-1B educators to teach STEM and language immersion programs.
- Faith-Based Services: Religious missions serving immigrant and Appalachian communities would lose pastors and missionaries with unique language and cultural skills.
Broader Impact on Immigration Policy
This lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to Trump's attempt to fundamentally restructure employment-based immigration through executive action. By conditioning entry on a six-figure payment, the Proclamation effectively undermines Congress's exclusive authority over taxation and immigration fees, raising serious constitutional questions. It also highlights the continued tension between immigration policy as an economic driver and the political use of executive power to restrict legal pathways for skilled workers.
What Comes Next
The plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the Proclamation pending judicial review. Given the economic and humanitarian stakes, this case is likely to move swiftly through the courts and may set a major precedent on the limits of presidential authority in immigration law.
At Saluja Law, we continue to monitor developments in employment-based immigration and executive policy changes that affect U.S. employers, foreign professionals, and international students. If you have questions about how this case might affect your pending or future H-1B petitions, contact our office for a consultation.