Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee as Unlawful

A federal judge has struck down one of the most controversial immigration measures introduced during President Donald Trump’s second term: a $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B visa petitions. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston on June 8, 2026, represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to reshape the high-skilled immigration system. In the ruling, Judge Sorokin wrote: “The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.”

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge. For decades, the program has served as a key pathway for attracting global talent to the American workforce.

However, with the introduction of the colossal fee through presidential proclamation, H-1B hiring has witnessed stifling and shock. The recent ruling can, in all likelihood, reverse the state of affairs and restore the earlier ease that was associated with the H-1B visa.

At GCEB1, our EB1A experts have always kept a watchful eye on all the developments and controversies surrounding this news.

A fee increase unlike any before

The controversy began in September 2025, when Trump issued a presidential proclamation dramatically increasing the cost of filing new H-1B petitions. Prior to the change, employers generally paid government filing fees ranging from a few thousand dollars. The new policy raised the cost to an unprecedented $100,000 per petition.

The administration argued that the fee would discourage companies from using foreign labor as a substitute for American workers. Officials maintained that the H-1B system had been abused by employers seeking lower-cost labor and that the fee would help protect U.S. jobs and wages.

The White House proclamation stated that the H-1B program had been “deliberately exploited” and that stricter measures were necessary to address what it viewed as systemic abuse of the visa category.

The legal challenge to the H-1B fee

A coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that the administration had exceeded its authority.

The states contended that the $100,000 charge functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory fee and that only Congress possesses the constitutional authority to impose taxes. They further argued that the measure violated the Administrative Procedure Act and harmed public institutions that depend on highly skilled foreign workers. The coalition also suggested that the policy would stifle advances in academic and healthcare research.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office helped lead the lawsuit, argued that the fee was designed as a deterrent rather than a legitimate administrative charge.

With Sorokin’s ruling, the coalition of the states saw a ray of optimism, in the light of which Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell argued in a statement: "Today's victory protects the integrity of the H-1B visa program as a tool to address severe labor shortages in vital industries like education, healthcare, and medical research. In Massachusetts, this win will ensure we can fill critical vacancies and hire world-class faculty and researchers at colleges and universities across the Commonwealth.”

Likewise, Bobby Mukkamala, the president of the American Medical Association, celebrated the ruling as “a victory for patients” in the following way:

"At a time when communities across the country face physician shortages and growing barriers to care, we should be removing obstacles — not creating new ones — to attract talented physicians and other highly skilled professionals. International medical graduates play a vital role in caring for patients, particularly in underserved and rural areas."

Federal judge Sorokin’s ruling

In his decision, Judge Sorokin sided with the states and concluded that the administration lacked legal authority to impose the fee.

The judge determined that the $100,000 charge was effectively a tax and therefore could not be created through a presidential proclamation. According to the ruling, Congress never granted the president authority to levy such a charge on H-1B visa petitions. Sorokin further held that the fee violated federal administrative law and exceeded the scope of executive power.

The ruling also drew upon recent Supreme Court precedent limiting executive authority to impose financial burdens without congressional approval. Sorokin emphasized that immigration statutes cited by the administration did not authorize the president to create what amounted to a new tax on visa applicants.

As a result, the court ordered that the fee be vacated and barred federal agencies, including the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), from enforcing it.

Despite the publicity surrounding the policy, evidence presented in court showed that relatively few employers actually paid the fee. Reports indicate that only 85 payments were made after the policy took effect.

Nonetheless, immigration experts argue that the fee had a chilling effect on hiring decisions. Many employers delayed or abandoned plans to sponsor foreign workers because of the enormous cost.

Higher education organizations warned that the policy threatened research programs and faculty recruitment. Healthcare providers similarly argued that it would worsen shortages of physicians and specialized medical professionals.

The decision is particularly important for technology companies, which remain among the largest users of H-1B visas. Many firms rely on the program to recruit software engineers, data scientists, and other highly skilled professionals from around the world.

What happens next?

The Trump administration has strongly criticized the ruling and signaled that it intends to appeal. White House officials described the decision as flawed and expressed confidence that higher courts would ultimately uphold the administration’s authority. Recently, a Department of Homeland Security Statement articulated this standpoint the following way:

"Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric."

However, legal uncertainty surrounding the policy still remains because another federal court previously reached a different conclusion regarding the fee. If conflicting rulings persist side by side, appellate courts, or potentially the U.S. Supreme Court, may eventually be asked to resolve the issue.

For now, however, employers seeking new H-1B workers are no longer required to pay the $100,000 charge. The ruling removes a major obstacle for businesses, universities, and public institutions that depend on skilled foreign talent and marks one of the most significant judicial rebukes of the administration’s immigration agenda to date. At GCEB1, our EB1A consultants are always staying updated on all the evolution of immigration policies so that we can guide our candidates better through the meshwork of legal & immigration options.

FAQs on the latest ruling on the H-1B visa fee

What was the $100,000 H-1B fee?

The fee was a charge imposed by President Trump in September 2025 on new H-1B visa petitions. It increased the cost of sponsoring an H-1B worker from several thousand dollars to $100,000 per petition.

Why did the Trump administration create the fee?

The administration argued that the H-1B program was being used to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor and claimed the fee would discourage abuse while protecting U.S. jobs and wages.

Why did the federal judge rule the fee unlawful?

Judge Leo Sorokin found that the fee functioned as a tax and that Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose taxes. He concluded that the administration exceeded its legal authority.

Does the ruling immediately eliminate the fee?

Yes. The court vacated the policy and prohibited federal agencies from enforcing it, meaning employers are no longer required to pay the $100,000 charge while the ruling remains in effect.

Can the Trump administration appeal the decision?

Yes. The administration has indicated that it expects the ruling to be overturned and is likely to pursue an appeal.

Who challenged the fee in court?

A coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general filed the lawsuit, arguing that the fee was unlawful and harmed public institutions that rely on skilled foreign workers.

How does this ruling affect employers and H-1B applicants?

Employers can once again pursue H-1B sponsorship without paying the additional $100,000 fee. This may encourage more hiring of international professionals, particularly by universities, hospitals, research institutions, and smaller businesses.

Could the Supreme Court eventually hear this case?

Possibly. Because different federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions about the legality of the fee, appellate courts or the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately decide the issue.