Victory! Liberal Court Upholds H1-B Fees
Agrees with FAIR that President’s authority is more than adequate
WASHINGTON—A liberal court in Washington, DC, has given the Trump Administration a victory, upholding Trump’s imposition of a hundred-thousand-dollar fee on companies each time they hire an H1-B worker from abroad instead of an American. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) had filed a brief in the court urging that result.
The Chamber of Commerce had sued the Administration in DC federal district court in an attempt to block the fee. The Chamber claimed that the President’s proclamation establishing the fee had no good reason, and therefore was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In response, FAIR showed in its brief that, under the law, the President, not courts, is the sole judge of whether his restrictions on the entry of aliens are in the national interest.
In 1952, Congress passed a statute that gives the President the power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens, or all aliens, into the country, or put any restrictions on their entry, if he deems such suspensions or restrictions in the national interest. As FAIR showed in its brief, the Supreme Court has firmly upheld this law, and its deference to the President’s decisions, in prior cases. It is also clear, FAIR showed, that the President, not being an agency, is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and neither are his subordinates when they carry out a proclamation under this 1952 statute.
In rejecting the Chamber’s challenge, the Court agreed with FAIR, concluding that the fee was lawful under the President’s broad power under this statute.
“It is of course obviously in the national interest for American tech companies to hire American tech workers rather than often less well-trained workers from abroad, even if it’s not in the short-term interests of the companies, who want to pay workers as little as possible,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of FAIR. “We are grateful to have a President who sees this national interest clearly and acts on it, and are pleased the court recognized that it has no legal basis to impose the contrary view of advocacy groups like the Chamber of Commerce on the nation.”
The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-03675 (D.D.C.).
