BOSTON — June 8, 2026 — A federal judge on Monday struck down the $100,000 fee that the Trump administration imposed last year on certain new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the charge was a tax the president had no power to create without Congress and ordering it erased nationwide.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who sits in Boston, found that the policy violated both the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's Taxing Clause. In a 42-page decision, he concluded that the payment functioned as a tax regardless of the label the government gave it, and that no statute authorized the executive branch to impose it. Rather than offering narrow relief, Sorokin used a procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act to vacate the fee entirely, rejecting the administration's argument that any remedy should be limited.
Why this ruling carries weight
What gives the decision broader force is the legal scaffolding behind it. Sorokin pointed to a Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year that struck down a separate set of Trump tariffs, in which the justices treated comparable government charges as taxes for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing Clause. Because the power to tax belongs to Congress, the judge reasoned, an executive levy of this size on visa petitions could not stand on the president's authority alone. That framing matters beyond the H-1B program: it situates the fee within a wider judicial debate over how far a president can go in using fees, tariffs, and similar charges as instruments of policy.
The ruling also widens a genuine split among judges. In December, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington — like Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama — reached the opposite conclusion, siding with the administration in a separate challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities and finding the fee lawful. That challenge is on appeal. With two trial courts now in open disagreement and additional suits filed by staffing companies, the question appears headed for the appellate courts and, potentially, the Supreme Court.
What each side argues
The case decided Monday was brought by a coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, who filed it in December. The states argued that the fee would choke off hiring for roles that public hospitals, universities, and school districts struggle to fill, and that it amounted to a tax Congress never approved. New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, emphasized that H-1B holders work across her state as physicians, teachers, and other skilled professionals.
The administration cast the measure very differently. The Department of Homeland Security called the decision an act of judicial overreach and defended the underlying policy. A White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said the president holds clear authority to restrict the entry of any class of foreign nationals he judges contrary to the national interest, argued that the H-1B program had been misused for years, and said the administration would appeal and expected the ruling to be reversed. Officials have described the fee as a way to push employers toward hiring American workers.
What the fee was, and who it touched
President Trump created the charge through a proclamation signed September 19, 2025, that took effect two days later. It marked a dramatic escalation in cost: standard H-1B petition fees had previously run in the range of a few thousand dollars per application. The new fee is generally borne by the sponsoring employer.
In practice, the levy was narrower than its headline figure suggested. Federal guidance limited it to petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States who lacked a valid visa, or those routed through consular processing. Petitions seeking an extension, amendment, or change of status for workers already lawfully in the country — including students moving from F-1 status into H-1B — were generally exempt. That carve-out had already shaped employer strategy, pushing many to favor candidates who could be sponsored from inside the United States.
The pieces the ruling leaves intact
Monday's decision does not undo the rest of the administration's H-1B overhaul. A separate measure replacing the long-standing random lottery with a wage-weighted selection system — one that gives higher-paid roles better odds — took effect in February and was used for the first time during this spring's cap season. Enhanced vetting of applicants also remains in place. Those changes were not before the court.
The fee itself carries a second source of uncertainty independent of the litigation: the proclamation that created it is set to expire roughly one year after it took effect, in September, unless the administration renews it.
What happens next
For now, the fee is off the table nationwide, easing a major cost concern for employers that recruit globally. But with an appeal promised, a contrary ruling already on the books, and the proclamation's own clock running down, the durability of Monday's relief is far from settled. The deeper question the case raises — how much power a president has to attach steep economic conditions to immigration through executive action — is likely to outlast this particular fee.
© 2026 HNGN, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
