Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 Fee on H-1B Visas

A federal judge in Boston on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, ruling that the charge constituted an unlawful tax that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose. The decision vacates the policy “in its entirety” and deals a significant blow to President Trump’s broader immigration and visa overhaul.

The Ruling

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts issued a 42-page ruling on June 8, finding that the executive branch exceeded its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. According to NPR, Sorokin concluded that the $100,000 payment functioned as a tax, not a regulatory restriction, and that the administration also violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing required notice-and-comment rulemaking.

“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote in his ruling. “Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called.”

Sorokin, an Obama appointee who previously blocked Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, cited the Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump, which struck down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs. The judge concluded that Trump similarly lacked authority under immigration law to levy a tax.

The Fee and Its Impact

Before Trump’s September 2025 proclamation, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in filing fees to sponsor an H-1B worker. The new fee represented a 20-to-50-fold increase. As reported by Al Jazeera, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee as of February 15, 2026, according to a March court filing.

The H-1B program offers 65,000 visas annually for workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, plus 20,000 for advanced-degree holders. Roughly two-thirds of H-1B positions are computer-related, and nearly three-quarters of approvals go to workers from India.

Legal Battle and Conflicting Rulings

The lawsuit was filed in December 2025 by a coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general, co-led by New York AG Letitia James and California AG Rob Bonta. According to TIME, the policy faced multiple legal challenges, including an ongoing appeal by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after a separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., upheld the fee in December 2025. A third lawsuit, filed by healthcare organizations and labor unions, remains pending in federal court in California.

This creates the possibility of divided rulings across three appellate court circuits, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review.

Reactions

President Trump criticized the ruling sharply. “These federal judges are really giving us a hard time,” Trump said, according to Fox News. “They are giving us a very, very hard time, and they shouldn’t be doing it. They’re hurting our country very badly.”

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the administration is confident the order will be reversed on appeal. “President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests, and that is exactly what he did,” Rogers said in a statement.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement disagreeing with what it called “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

Democratic leaders and critics of the policy applauded the ruling. “We won our case against the Trump administration for trying to destroy the H-1B visa program,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said. “Thousands with these visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers, and other skilled workers.”

Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, called the ruling “a victory for patients,” noting that international medical graduates play a vital role in caring for patients in underserved and rural areas.

Broader Significance

The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that only Congress can levy taxes, limiting executive power even in immigration matters where presidents traditionally have broad discretion. It also represents a significant setback for Trump’s broader immigration overhaul, which has faced multiple legal challenges. The birthright citizenship case, also involving Judge Sorokin, is now before the Supreme Court, with a ruling expected in the coming weeks.

What’s Next

The administration is expected to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The conflicting D.C. ruling may lead to a circuit split, increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review. Meanwhile, the ruling vacates the fee entirely, meaning employers can resume sponsoring H-1B workers at the previous fee levels — though the administration’s other H-1B reforms, including enhanced vetting and a new weighted visa selection process, remain in place.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) noted the practical impact, writing that the decision “came at a critical time for Alaska’s schools that are in the midst of hiring before next fall,” as many rural districts rely on the H-1B program to bring quality teachers to their communities.