Blab Politics
Judge Blocks Trump-Era $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, Citing Unlawful Tax
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee for new H‑1B visa applications, declaring it an unlawful tax that Congress had not sanctioned. The decision came after a lawsuit filed by 20 Democratic state attorneys general—led by California—argued that the hefty fee would cripple state‑run colleges, K‑12 schools, and health‑care systems that depend on foreign specialists.
The H‑1B program, overseen by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, lets U.S. employers hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that require a bachelor’s degree or higher. Since its 1990 inception, the program has issued 85,000 visas each fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for holders of U.S. master’s degrees. It remains a vital source of highly skilled labor for technology firms, research institutions, and other employers that rely on foreign expertise.
In September 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that added a $100,000 fee to the existing $2,000‑$5,000 fee for filing an H‑1B petition. The surcharge applied only to new applications, exempting change‑of‑status requests and individuals already in the United States on F‑1 Optional Practical Training. The administration framed the fee as a tool to encourage U.S. companies to hire American workers and to curb what it called “cheap foreign labor.”
The lawsuit, filed in December 2025, contended that the fee exceeded the executive branch’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The states argued that the surcharge would impose a financial burden on public institutions that rely on foreign expertise and that Congress had not approved a fee of that magnitude.
Judge Sorokin agreed with the plaintiffs. In a 42‑page opinion, he held that the fee was an unapproved tax and that the executive order overstepped the president’s statutory authority. He noted that Congress had not authorized a $100,000 fee for H‑1B petitions and that the order violated the principle that taxes must be authorized by law. The judge also found that the fee would disproportionately impact state‑run entities, a point the plaintiffs had highlighted.
The ruling leaves the fee in abeyance pending further litigation. The Trump administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision. The Department of Homeland Security has indicated that it will review the order’s legal basis, but no official statement has been released. The states have said they will continue to monitor the situation and will pursue additional legal remedies if necessary.
For technology companies and other employers that rely on H‑1B workers, the decision removes a significant financial barrier that had been in place for the past year. However, the ruling does not restore the original fee structure; the existing $2,000‑$5,000 fee remains in effect. The next major development will be whether the administration files an appeal and how the courts interpret the scope of executive authority over immigration fees.
The H‑1B program, overseen by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, lets U.S. employers hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that require a bachelor’s degree or higher. Since its 1990 inception, the program has issued 85,000 visas each fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for holders of U.S. master’s degrees. It remains a vital source of highly skilled labor for technology firms, research institutions, and other employers that rely on foreign expertise.
In September 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that added a $100,000 fee to the existing $2,000‑$5,000 fee for filing an H‑1B petition. The surcharge applied only to new applications, exempting change‑of‑status requests and individuals already in the United States on F‑1 Optional Practical Training. The administration framed the fee as a tool to encourage U.S. companies to hire American workers and to curb what it called “cheap foreign labor.”
The lawsuit, filed in December 2025, contended that the fee exceeded the executive branch’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The states argued that the surcharge would impose a financial burden on public institutions that rely on foreign expertise and that Congress had not approved a fee of that magnitude.
Judge Sorokin agreed with the plaintiffs. In a 42‑page opinion, he held that the fee was an unapproved tax and that the executive order overstepped the president’s statutory authority. He noted that Congress had not authorized a $100,000 fee for H‑1B petitions and that the order violated the principle that taxes must be authorized by law. The judge also found that the fee would disproportionately impact state‑run entities, a point the plaintiffs had highlighted.
The ruling leaves the fee in abeyance pending further litigation. The Trump administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision. The Department of Homeland Security has indicated that it will review the order’s legal basis, but no official statement has been released. The states have said they will continue to monitor the situation and will pursue additional legal remedies if necessary.
For technology companies and other employers that rely on H‑1B workers, the decision removes a significant financial barrier that had been in place for the past year. However, the ruling does not restore the original fee structure; the existing $2,000‑$5,000 fee remains in effect. The next major development will be whether the administration files an appeal and how the courts interpret the scope of executive authority over immigration fees.
