Howell rejected the Chamber’s argument that Trump doesn’t have the power to impose the fee, finding that his proclamation was issued under “an express statutory grant of authority to the President.”
Congress has given the president broad authority that he used to address “in the manner he sees fit, a problem he perceives to be a matter of economic and national security,” she wrote.
Daryl Joseffer, the Chamber’s executive vice president, said in a statement the $100,000 fee makes H-1B visas cost prohibitive.
“We are disappointed in the court’s decision and are considering further legal options to ensure that the H-1B visa program can operate as Congress intended: to enable American businesses of all sizes to access the global talent they need to grow their operations,” Joseffer said.
The Chamber, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, argued in its October lawsuit that raising the fee is unlawful because it overrides federal immigration law and exceeds the fee-setting authority afforded by Congress.
A group of 19 state attorneys general also is challenging Trump’s proclamation. Their lawsuit focuses on the projected impact to the public sector, particularly in the fields of health care and education, that also rely on the H-1B visa program. A separate suit was filed by a global nurse-staffing agency.
The ruling Tuesday doesn’t have an impact on the other lawsuits, meaning another judge could still block the new visa fee in the months to come. The other cases include a suit filed in Massachusetts earlier this month by more than a dozen mostly Democratic-led states, as well as a suit filed in October in California by a global nurse-staffing agency and several unions.
Both of the other cases are also being handled by Obama appointees, and neither judge has yet ruled on any requests for injunctions against the rule. A hearing in the California case is set for Feb. 12 in Oakland. The dispute is likely to ultimately be resolved by the US Supreme Court.
It’s a stark shift from America’s historical stance toward immigration. Since its founding, the US has welcomed people from diverse countries and economic backgrounds who come to the US in search of a better life and more freedom.
Yet while Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have mused about the prospects of a windfall for the US Treasury that could total $100 billion or more, immigration attorneys have cautioned that an increase in cost of this magnitude would cause major disruptions that would be likely very expensive to the US economy.
For “superstars” in highly-paid, specialized roles, or for jobs that generate a lot of revenue, organizations will be willing to pay the $100,000 fee, she said.
But the high cost will change how people making hiring decisions approach looking for employees in more run-of-the-mill jobs, DuFresne said. “If you’re going to search, you’re going to tell the search people ‘Don’t look globally for me. Look domestically for me,’” she said of such common jobs.
Likewise, organizations with offices around the world will be able to respond to the recruitment costs by shifting where they hire, according to DuFresne. “The firms that it’s going to affect the most are the smaller firms,” she said.
The tech industry has been adapting to changes in US immigration rules for a while now as political currents shift.
(Updates with expert comments and background on impact in India.)
