Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

2 min read

6/8/2026

A federal judge has invalidated President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on H‑1B visas, ruling on June 8, 2026 that the charge was an unlawful tax the executive branch lacked authority to impose. The decision immediately lifts a costly requirement that had upended hiring plans across the tech sector, hospitals, and universities.

Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee: A federal judge has invalidated President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on …

What Happened

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Boston vacated the policy, concluding the White House exceeded its powers by conditioning new H‑1B petitions on a $100,000 payment. In a suit led by California and joined by 19 other states, the court found the fee amounted to a tax that only Congress can authorize and that the administration’s explanations fell short under the Administrative Procedure Act. Sorokin ordered the fee requirement set aside in its entirety.

How We Got Here

The Trump administration announced the fee in September 2025 as part of a broader effort to restrict legal pathways for skilled foreign workers. Before the change, government filing costs for most H‑1B cases typically totaled a few thousand dollars, depending on employer size and category. State attorneys general argued the sudden six-figure levy would price out public institutions and smaller employers and usurp Congress’s role over immigration rules and revenue. Twenty states sued, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, after earlier challenges by business groups failed to secure durable relief.

What It Means

The ruling removes, for now, an expense that had chilled recruitment of software engineers, clinicians, and researchers who often enter the U.S. labor market via H‑1B visas. Employers preparing petitions should not owe the $100,000 while the order stands. The White House has defended the fee as a tool to deter abuse of the program and is expected to appeal, which could determine whether the requirement is revived pending higher-court review. The administration is likely to seek a stay while it appeals, a step that would shape near‑term hiring decisions.

More broadly, the decision underscores the limits on executive power to raise revenue or reprice statutory programs without congressional approval. It also adds to a string of courtroom tests of the administration’s immigration and economic agenda, with policy durability increasingly hinging on how carefully legal authorities are invoked and explained.