Federal Judge Invalidates Trump’s $100,000 H‑1B Visa Fee

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a unanimous ruling that voided President Donald Trump’s executive order imposing a $100,000 fee on new H‑1B visa petitions. The judge determined that the fee was an unlawful tax that Congress had never authorized the executive branch to impose. The decision applies nationwide and restores the program to its pre‑order fee structure.

The H‑1B visa allows U.S. companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that typically require a bachelor’s degree or higher. Since its creation in 1990, the program has capped annual issuances at 65,000 visas, with an additional 20,000 available to those holding advanced degrees. Employers usually pay between $1,700 and $4,500 per petition.

In September, the Trump administration announced a $100,000 payment that would apply to new visa applications filed after that date. The order was justified as a measure to curb what the administration described as the “systematic abuse” of the program, claiming it was used to replace American workers with lower‑paid foreign labor.
States from 20 regions, led by California, sued to block the fee, arguing that it would strain public schools, universities and healthcare systems that rely heavily on H‑1B workers. They contended the fee was an arbitrary, capricious tax imposed without congressional delegation.

Judge Sorokin, an Obama appointee, ruled that the fee was a tax under the U.S. Constitution’s Taxing Clause, not a regulatory or penalty. He cited Supreme Court precedent, including Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security amount to taxes for constitutional purposes. Sorokin found that the H‑1B statutes did not grant the president the authority to levied taxes in this context.

In a 42‑page decision, the judge stated: “The substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called.” The ruling vacated the policy in its entirety and prevented its implementation. The department of Homeland Security described the ruling as “blatant judicial activism,” while the White House said it planned to appeal.

Beyond the legal findings, the decision has immediate practical impact. Firms and universities that had begun to prepare for the fee can now resume filing H‑1B petitions under the standard fee structure. Employers expect fewer administrative delays, and many anticipate a rebound in the number of petitions submitted.

Although the ruling stands as a victory for business and public‑sector employers, the administration is likely to seek a stay and file an appeal. The possibility of a divided court landscape remains, as other suits related to the fee continue in different circuits.

Conclusion

The judge’s decision reaffirms the separation of powers by confirming that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose tax‑like fees on immigration processes without congressional authorization. It preserves access to the H‑1B program and underscores the judicial system’s role in checking executive overreach.