Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee struck down as unlawful by federal judge
Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee deemed unlawful by federal court
Trump s 100 000 H 1B visa - A federal judge in Boston ruled on Monday (June 8) that President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa applications was unconstitutional, stating it functioned as an unapproved tax rather than a legal immigration charge. The decision was issued in a lawsuit led by 20 Democratic state attorneys general who contested the policy introduced in September.
Fee classified as unauthorized tax
US District Judge Leo Sorokin concluded that the $100,000 charge imposed on specific H-1B petitions lacked congressional backing, rendering it unlawful. According to his ruling, the administration’s claim that the fee was a penalty for immigration purposes did not hold up under scrutiny.
"Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called," Sorokin wrote.
Legal challenge highlights policy impact
The lawsuit argued the fee disproportionately burdened employers, universities, hospitals, and tech firms that depend on skilled foreign labor. Before Trump’s change, employer fees for H-1B sponsorship ranged from $2,000 to $5,000, varying by company size and other factors.
Administration data cited in the case showed only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee by February 15, suggesting the policy had already deterred applications. The Trump administration defended the charge as a penalty under federal immigration law, claiming the president had the authority to impose it.
H-1B program and its role
The H-1B visa program permits US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialized fields like technology, engineering, healthcare, finance, and research. Annually, 65,000 visas are issued, with 20,000 additional slots for those with advanced degrees from American institutions.
The ruling marks a major hurdle for the Trump administration’s efforts to curb foreign worker entry, invalidating the controversial fee and signaling potential shifts in immigration policy under future leadership.