← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Global Nurse Force v. Trump

No. 4:25-cv-08454 District · Active Active
Court
Federal Court
cand
Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. 44
Filed
Oct 3, 2025
Judge (CL)
Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. 44
Filed (CL)
Oct 3, 2025
CL Status
active

Case Overview

A coalition of labor unions, religious organizations, and non-profit organizations sued the Trump administration over the changes to the H-1B visa program which would require the employers of workers on a H-1B visa to pay the federal government $100,000.


The Application

History

Plaintiffs argue the H-1B fee was imposed without proper rulemaking procedures and exceeds the Department of Labor's statutory authority to regulate the visa program, challenging both the procedural validity and substantive lawfulness of the requirement.

The Conclusion

The case remains active in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., with plaintiffs seeking to enjoin the fee requirement pending resolution of the underlying merits.

Federal Court TMR-3582b912 H-1B Visa Program Changes Jul 11, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

A coalition of labor unions, religious organizations, and non-profit organizations sued the Trump administration over the changes to the H-1B visa program which would require the employers of workers on a H-1B visa to pay the federal government $100,000.

Issue

Whether the Trump administration's imposition of a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa employers exceeds statutory authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act's procedural and substantive requirements.

Rule

Agency action must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, including notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, and must be consistent with the agency's enabling statute and constitutional constraints on regulatory authority.

Analysis

Plaintiffs argue the H-1B fee was imposed without proper rulemaking procedures and exceeds the Department of Labor's statutory authority to regulate the visa program, challenging both the procedural validity and substantive lawfulness of the requirement.

Conclusion

The case remains active in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., with plaintiffs seeking to enjoin the fee requirement pending resolution of the underlying merits.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support