A federal district court in Washington D.C. has sided with the government, denying a major business group’s challenge to a Presidential Proclamation that imposes a steep $100,000 payment requirement on employers seeking new H-1B specialty occupation visas. Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the President acted within the broad statutory authority granted by Congress when issuing the Proclamation, thereby rejecting claims that the policy was *ultra vires* (beyond legal power) or violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The ruling, issued in late December 2025, marks a significant victory for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies tasked with implementing the new immigration measure.
The Controversial Proclamation
The legal battle centered on Proclamation No. 10973, signed by the President on September 19, 2025. This Proclamation immediately required employers filing petitions for new H-1B visas to make a supplemental payment of $100,000 before the petition would be processed. The President cited findings that the existing H-1B program was being exploited, leading to the suppression of American wages and posing a national security risk by discouraging domestic pursuit of science and technology careers.
The lawsuit was brought by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the nation’s largest business federation, and the Association of American Universities (AAU), representing major research institutions. Plaintiffs argued that this massive fee requirement contradicted the established statutory framework for the H-1B program and was an overreach of executive authority.
Presidential Power in Immigration Law
The court’s decision hinged on a straightforward interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1185(a)(1). These sections grant the President sweeping authority to suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens when he finds such action “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Judge Howell emphasized that when the executive branch acts with express congressional authorization, it is at the “zenith of its powers.” Citing Supreme Court precedent, the opinion noted that § 1182(f) “exudes deference to the President in every clause.”
Plaintiffs contended that the Proclamation failed the statutory test because its findings focused on the alleged misconduct of U.S. employers rather than directly on the entry of noncitizens being detrimental. The court rejected this, finding that the President’s reasoning—that employer abuse *results* in detrimental entry—was a permissible continuum of logic supported by extensive data cited in the Proclamation regarding wage suppression and layoffs.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that the $100,000 payment amounted to an unconstitutional “taxing” measure reserved for Congress. The court reasoned that the payment was not an administrative “fee” under the cost-recovery statute (§ 1356(m)), but rather a restriction on entry authorized by § 1182(f). The court noted that while this monetary restriction on entry was novel, the broad language of “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” allowed for such a mechanism.
APA Claims Fail Because the Proclamation is Lawful
The plaintiffs also argued that the agencies’ actions to implement the Proclamation—through memos and website updates—were “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law” under the APA.
However, the court found this claim also failed because the underlying Presidential Proclamation was deemed lawful. As the implementing agencies (DHS, State Department) were executing a legally permissible directive, their actions were not arbitrary or capricious. The opinion noted that agencies “may not simply disregard” a binding presidential directive if it is permitted by law.
Additionally, the court found that even if the agencies’ implementation steps required formal notice-and-comment rulemaking—which plaintiffs argued was necessary for setting new fees—any procedural error would be considered “harmless.” This is because the agencies lacked discretion to deviate from the President’s command; therefore, receiving public comment would not have altered the legal outcome.
Standing and Deference to Political Branches
While the court found that the plaintiffs—the Chamber and the AAU—had established associational standing (largely due to the harm asserted by an identified university member, Arizona State University), the substantive claims did not survive.
Judge Howell stressed that the court’s role was limited to assessing legal authority, not the wisdom of the policy. The opinion explicitly stated that the “effects of the H-1B program on the American economy or national security, whether positive or negative, are simply not at issue in this case.” Matters of economic and foreign policy are generally entrusted to the political branches.
In conclusion, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and declared the defendants’ motion to dismiss moot. The $100,000 fee requirement, set to sunset in twelve months, remains in effect for new H-1B petitions for workers currently outside the U.S.