US Court Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee as Unlawful Tax

The ruling voided “in its entirety” a policy from September requiring companies to pay $100,000 fees for H-1B visa petitions.

Key Points

· A federal judge in the United States has invalidated a Trump administration policy that imposed a $100,000 fee on employers filing H-1B visa petitions for skilled foreign workers.

· Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the policy amounted to an unlawful tax and must be voided “in its entirety.”

Court’s Reasoning

· The judge held that the fee effectively functioned as a tax, a power that belongs exclusively to the U.S. Congress under the Constitution.

· He rejected the administration’s argument that the charge was a “regulatory payment” rather than a tax.

· The ruling also criticized the policy for being introduced without:

o A formal rulemaking process.

o Public consultation.

o Adequate justification.

Background of the Policy

· Introduced in September 2025, the fee was intended to discourage companies from hiring foreign workers and encourage recruitment of U.S. citizens.

· The administration argued that the H-1B Visa Program had been used by some employers to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor.

Impact on Employers

· The H-1B program issues about 85,000 new visas annually through a lottery system.

· Major users of H-1B visas include:

o Technology companies

o Financial institutions

o Hospitals

o Universities

o Research organizations

· Businesses and nonprofit organizations argued that the $100,000 fee would make hiring skilled foreign professionals prohibitively expensive.

Legal Challenge

· A coalition of 20 U.S. states filed a lawsuit in December, arguing that the fee would worsen shortages of:

o Doctors

o Nurses and healthcare professionals

o Teachers

o Academic researchers

o Other skilled workers

· Letitia James welcomed the decision, stating that H-1B visa holders play a vital role in sectors such as healthcare and education.

Conflicting Court Decisions

· The ruling differs from an earlier decision by Beryl Howell, who had upheld the fee in a separate case, citing the president’s broad authority over immigration matters.

· Judge Sorokin, however, emphasized that the president cannot impose taxes or penalties without explicit authorization from Congress.

Wider Context

· The visa fee was one of several immigration measures introduced by the Trump administration aimed at restricting immigration and reducing reliance on foreign workers.

· The ruling follows other court decisions that have blocked or overturned administration policies affecting immigration benefits and work permits.

What Happens Next?

· The White House has indicated that it will appeal the decision.

· Administration officials maintain that the president has broad authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals and are confident the ruling will be overturned by a higher court.

Significance

The judgment represents a significant legal setback for efforts to tighten access to the H-1B visa program. If upheld on appeal, it will preserve a key pathway for skilled foreign professionals and help employers in sectors facing labor shortages continue to recruit international talent without the burden of the proposed $100,000 fee.

[ABS News Service/09.06.2026]

A Trump administration initiative to impose $100,000 fees on employers seeking visas for skilled foreign workers amounts to an unlawful tax on those companies and must be voided “in its entirety,” a federal judge ruled on Monday (08.06.2026).

The decision by Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts nullified one of a series of tactics the Trump administration has used to restrict legal immigration, even in fields in which foreign skilled labor helped address severe shortages.

In a 42-page opinion, Judge Sorokin acknowledged that the policy, imposed in September, appeared to step on Congress’s “exclusive power” to levy taxes under the Constitution. He dismissed claims by the Trump administration that the fee was a “regulatory payment” that would have been within the executive branch’s power to set, not a tax.

“This is mere ipse dixit,” he wrote, meaning offered without evidence. “Defendants offer no definition for what constitutes ‘a regulatory payment,’ cite no cases or statutes employing the term, and advance no reasoned argument explaining how this term encompasses something different than a tax or a penalty.”

Judge Sorokin wrote that the rule was hastily formulated with no formal process or request for public comment, despite what might have been broad opposition to the rule across many industries that have historically relied on the visa program to fill critical needs.

The Trump administration had argued in filings that the H-1B program “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” Mr. Trump said the $100,000 fee would incentivize companies to hire more U.S. citizens into high-paying roles.

About 85,000 new visas have been provided annually to hire so-called high-skilled foreign workers at companies through the program’s lottery process. Technology, finance, hospitals and universities have all made ample use of those visas. A variety of companies have said the fee would be prohibitively expensive, in particular for smaller companies and nonprofit groups that rely on hiring workers from abroad.

A coalition of 20 states sued to end the policy in December, arguing it was certain to exacerbate shortages of skilled workers including teachers, academic researchers and medical workers.

“Every day, thousands of people with H-1B visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers and other skilled workers,” Letitia James, the New York attorney general, said in a statement. “Today a court put an end to this administration’s illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible.”

The ruling came nearly six months after Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, reached the opposite conclusion in a different case, allowing the administration to move forward with the visa fee. She said the administration had the right to impose the fee because under federal immigration law, Congress had given the president “broad authority to regulate entry into the United States for immigrants and nonimmigrants alike.”

But Judge Sorokin, also an Obama appointee, wrote that the Supreme Court has maintained throughout several cases — including one against Mr. Trump’s tariffs and another regarding penalties under the Affordable Care Act — that the president can only impose a tax or penalty when explicitly authorized by Congress.

The visa change was one of several that have appeared designed to take advantage of pressure points to restrict immigration flows and compel foreigners living in the country legally to leave. It fell hardest on highly educated professionals who had seen the program as a comparatively secure route to life in America.

In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would waive the fee for foreign health care professionals, a demographic that has disproportionately helped prop up rural and underserved hospitals that have faced staffing shortages. The measure has not been adopted by either chamber.

Federal judges have repeatedly found that Mr. Trump’s efforts to restrict various immigration programs were at odds with federal immigration law as Congress wrote it.

The ruling on Monday came just days after another federal judge similarly voided a policy in which the Trump administration had directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to freeze applications for work permits and other immigration benefits.

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said that President Trump “has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests,” and added that the administration was “confident this order will be reversed on appeal.” Ms. Rogers cited Judge Howell’s ruling from December as a further sign that the decision on Monday was flawed.