US judge strikes down unlawful $100,000 H1B fee.
Court overturns proclamation requiring $100,000 H-1B payment.
Washington: In a significant setback for the Trump administration’s immigration policy agenda, a federal judge has struck down the controversial $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the measure amounted to an unlawful tax enacted without congressional approval.
US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Massachusetts sided with a coalition of 20 states that challenged the policy in court and ordered it vacated nationwide. The ruling invalidates a September 2025 presidential proclamation that required employers filing new H-1B visa petitions to pay an additional $100,000 fee.
In his decision, Judge Sorokin concluded that the administration exceeded its legal authority by imposing what was effectively a tax rather than a permissible immigration restriction.
“There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions.”
The administration had defended the measure by arguing that the H-1B visa programme was being used to replace American workers and suppress wages, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) sectors. Officials maintained that the fee was a lawful exercise of presidential authority under immigration law and would help discourage misuse of the programme.
However, the coalition of states argued that the additional financial burden would severely hinder the ability of public institutions, universities, healthcare providers and research organizations to recruit skilled foreign professionals. They warned that the policy would worsen existing staffing shortages in critical sectors.
The court agreed, finding that the measure threatened hiring efforts in education, academic research and healthcare. Judge Sorokin rejected the administration’s claim that broad presidential powers under immigration statutes allowed such a fee to be imposed as a condition of entry into the United States.
He emphasized that presidential authority cannot exceed constitutional limits or the powers specifically granted by Congress.
A central issue in the case was whether the payment qualified as a legitimate immigration restriction or an unauthorized tax. Sorokin firmly concluded that it was a tax and therefore beyond the President’s authority.
“Taxes are not ‘restrictions,’” the judge wrote while rejecting the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He further stated that Congress had never delegated its constitutional taxing power to the President through the immigration laws cited by the administration.
The ruling also found that federal agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the policy without conducting the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. According to the court, agencies issued what amounted to a legislative rule without following legally mandated procedures.
Additionally, Sorokin determined that the policy was arbitrary and capricious because officials failed to provide adequate justification for the unprecedented increase in costs imposed on employers.
As a remedy, the court declared the policy unlawful and vacated all agency actions related to the $100,000 payment requirement.
The H-1B visa programme allows US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialized occupations requiring advanced knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Federal law currently caps most new H-1B visas at 65,000 annually, with an additional 20,000 reserved for individuals holding advanced degrees from US institutions. Universities, nonprofit affiliates and certain research organizations remain exempt from those annual limits.