A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, ruling that the measure exceeded presidential authority and amounted to an unlawful tax.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston on 8 June, marks a significant setback for one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts to reshape the employment-based immigration system. The ruling follows a lawsuit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the fee would make it substantially more difficult for employers to access skilled international talent.
What Was the Fee?
The fee was introduced in September 2025 and increased employer filing costs for a new H-1B application from roughly $2,000 to $5,000 to $100,000 per application. The H-1B program is widely used by U.S. employers, particularly in the technology, healthcare, engineering, and research sectors, to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals.
The H-1B program provides 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 visas available for applicants holding advanced degrees from U.S. universities.
The administration argued that the measure would encourage companies to invest more heavily in American workers and reduce reliance on foreign labour. Critics, however, warned that the fee would create a major barrier to hiring specialised talent and undermine U.S. competitiveness.
The fee did not apply to foreign nationals already in the United States on student visas who were transitioning to H-1B status. This group typically accounts for a significant share of new H-1B recipients each year.
Judge: Fee Was Effectively a Tax
In his ruling, Judge Sorokin concluded that the fee functioned as a tax rather than a lawful regulatory penalty. Because the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, rather than the President, authority to impose taxes, the court found that the administration lacked legal authority to introduce the measure.
The decision also reflects growing judicial scrutiny of executive actions that seek to implement major economic or immigration measures without explicit congressional approval. Judge Sorokin referenced recent Supreme Court guidance limiting the scope of presidential powers in similar contexts.
Implications for Employers
The ruling provides immediate relief for employers that rely on skilled foreign workers. Technology firms, healthcare providers, universities, and research institutions were among those expected to face significantly higher recruitment costs under the policy. Several states argued that the fee would have hindered their ability to attract doctors, scientists, educators, and other specialised professionals.
Court filings indicate that the policy had already discouraged applications. By February 2026, only a limited number of employers had paid the new fee, reflecting the substantial financial burden it imposed.
The Administration Plans to Appeal
The Trump administration has already signalled that it intends to challenge the ruling.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said the administration remains confident that the decision will be reversed on appeal.
According to Rogers, President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict the entry of classes of foreign nationals when he determines such action is in the national interest and acted within that authority when introducing the measure.
The appeal process means the legal dispute is likely to continue in the coming months.
Limited Uptake Highlights the Impact of the Fee
The fee appears to have had a significant deterrent effect.
According to court filings, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee as of 15 February 2026.
The relatively small number suggests that many employers either delayed hiring plans, sought alternative immigration pathways, or chose not to proceed with applications due to the substantial additional cost.
Part of a Broader H-1B Policy Shift
The fee was not the administration’s only attempt to reshape the H-1B program.
In recent months, the Trump administration has also ordered enhanced vetting of H-1B applicants and proposed changes to the visa selection process that would favour higher-skilled and higher-paid workers.
Supporters argue that such measures help ensure the program serves its original purpose of filling genuine skills gaps rather than reducing labour costs.
Critics, however, contend that increased restrictions may make it more difficult for U.S. employers to compete for global talent, particularly in industries where demand for specialised expertise continues to outpace domestic supply.
What Comes Next?
For now, the court’s ruling prevents enforcement of the $100,000 fee while the administration pursues its appeal.
However, the Trump administration has indicated that it intends to appeal the ruling, meaning the legal battle is unlikely to be over. While the court’s decision currently blocks enforcement of the fee, the outcome could ultimately be determined by higher courts.
The ruling is significant not only for employers but also for professionals considering U.S. career opportunities. It underscores the continued uncertainty surrounding U.S. employment immigration policy, where major changes can be introduced through executive action and subsequently challenged in court.
For businesses, the case highlights the ongoing uncertainty surrounding U.S. immigration policy and the challenges of implementing significant changes through executive action alone. It also reinforces the importance of legal and regulatory predictability in global talent mobility strategies.
As competition for skilled workers intensifies worldwide, the outcome of this dispute may influence not only U.S. employers but also broader discussions about how countries balance domestic workforce priorities with the need to attract international talent.
