On Thursday, the Cato Institute and I filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in support of California and other states challenging the Trump Administration's imposition of a $100,000 fee on applications for H-1B visas (which are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers and researchers with various specialized skills).
asserted
which → file → skills
The district court ruling in this case invalidated the $100,000 fee on the grounds that the executive had illegally usurped Congress' power to impose taxes.
asserted
executive → invalidate → taxes
It relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariff case I helped litigate.
asserted
I → rely → Trump
A second federal district court later invalidated the fee on other grounds.
asserted
court → invalidate → grounds
We are very grateful to Deno Hemonas and Philip Wilkinson of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, who worked with me on the brief, pro bono.
asserted
who → work → brief
Stanford Law School Prof. and former federal judge Michael McConnell, also worked with us on the brief.
asserted
Prof. → work → brief
He is one of the nation's leading experts on executive power, a prominent conservative originalist constitutional law scholar, and was our lead counsel in the Supreme Court phase of the IEEPA tariff case.
asserted
He → lead → case
As the Supreme Court emphasized in its recent decisions striking down Donald Trump's Massive IEEPA tariffs, "the Framers gave Congress alone access to the pockets of the people."
asserted
Framers → emphasize → people
The tax power was, as Alexander Hamilton explained, "the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union."
asserted
Hamilton → explain → Union
Just months ago, the Supreme Court in Learning Resources applied those fundamental principles to hold that the President may not use a general grant of authority to "regulate … importation" to impose tariffs, because the power to "regulate" is not the power to tax and Congress did not clearly delegate its taxing power.
uncertain
Congress → apply → power
This case asks whether the same President—by imposing a tax of his own devising on the entry of noncitizens and calling it a "restriction" on entry—may accomplish by a different label what Learning Resources forbade.
uncertain
Resources → ask → what
Its "defining feature" is that it raises revenue.
asserted
it → raise → revenue
It is neither a mere fee contributing to the costs of operating the program nor a penalty.
asserted
It → contribute → program
The power to "restrict" entry is not the power to "tax" entry.
asserted
power → restrict → entry
To limit or qualify entry says nothing about charging for it, and the Government can identify no statute in which the words "restrict" or "restriction" confer tax authority.
asserted
restrict → limit → authority
The Immigration and Nationality Act contains express, detailed provisions for fees and payments, setting each amount and specifying how the funds are collected and spent.
asserted
funds → contain → amount
This confirms the absence of a generalized, unlimited discretionary presidential taxing power.
asserted
This → confirm → power
Congress does not "hide elephants in mouseholes," and this case involves a very large elephant.
asserted
case → hide → elephant
In more than a century, no President has used Section 212(f) or Section 215(a) of the INA to raise revenue, a point the Government does not dispute.
asserted
Government → use → point
As the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, that absence is "strong evidence" the power does not exist.
asserted
power → hold → Resources
In addition, the government's interpretation of the relevant statutes violates the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when delegating power over a major economic or political issue to the executive.
asserted
which → violate → executive
The power to impose unlimited taxes on any visa holders or immigrants entering into the United States is undoubtedly a major one.
asserted
power → impose → States
If, nonetheless, the court concludes that Congress did somehow grant the government the sweeping power it claims, it would violate the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, which constrains delegations of legislative power to the executive.
uncertain
which → conclude → executive
I have previously criticized the $100,000 H-1B fee on both legal and policy grounds here, here, and here.
asserted
I → criticize → grounds
The Aporia
