A federal judge in Boston has struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, ruling that the policy amounted to an unlawful tax that Congress never authorized.
The decision vacates a September presidential proclamation that imposed the fee as part of an effort to reshape the H-1B program, and the White House is expected to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded that the payment structure exceeded executive authority, finding that it functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory fee.
“The substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,” Sorokin wrote in his 42-page ruling. “The Policy implementing the Proclamation is declared unlawful and is vacated in its entirety.”
The case was brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded its authority over immigration fee structures, according to USA Today.
The H-1B program, which provides 65,000 visas annually along with 20,000 additional visas for advanced-degree holders, has long been a central flashpoint in debates over high-skilled immigration and labor market competition.
The H-1B program, heavily concentrated in tech, engineering, and healthcare hiring, remains one of the most contested visa systems in U.S. immigration policy.
However, critics of the program have long argued that it has been used to undercut wages and increase reliance on foreign labor, making it one of the most politically contentious elements of the U.S. immigration system.
The Trump administration had defended the fee as part of a broader strategy to curb what it described as long-standing abuse of the program.
Officials argued that large technology companies had relied heavily on H-1B visas to access lower-cost labor, depressing wages and displacing American workers in some sectors.
Prior to the policy change, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in filing-related costs.
Court filings cited in the case showed the sharp increase had an immediate impact on participation.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reportedly received just 85 payments of the $100,000 fee as of mid-February, suggesting a steep decline in usage following implementation.
The White House confirmed it will appeal the ruling, arguing that the president retains broad authority to regulate the entry of foreign nationals.
“President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said, adding that the administration is confident the decision will be overturned on appeal.
Responding to questions on Monday, Trump also criticized the judiciary.
“These federal judges are really giving us a hard time,” he said, according to Financial Express. “It’s really crazy what’s going on with the court system… They’re hurting our country very badly.”
Supporters of the policy have argued that higher fees are necessary to prevent abuse of the H-1B system and ensure employers prioritize American workers when hiring.
Critics, however, warned the policy risked disrupting industries that rely heavily on skilled foreign labor, including technology, healthcare, and research institutions, according to Politico.
The ruling adds to a growing body of litigation testing the limits of executive authority over immigration policy, particularly in areas where financial penalties or fees are used to shape behavior.
Legal experts note that courts have increasingly scrutinized attempts by presidents to use fee structures as policy tools without explicit congressional authorization.
The outcome of the appeal is expected to further define how far executive power extends in regulating legal immigration channels such as employment-based visa programs.
The case now places the policy in legal limbo as the appeals process moves forward, setting up a broader legal battle over executive authority in immigration regulation and fee-setting power.
The outcome could have significant implications for future policy actions affecting legal immigration programs.
WATCH:
