A federal judge has dealt a significant setback to one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive immigration measures, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. The decision could have major implications for U.S. companies, universities, hospitals and technology firms that rely on highly skilled foreign workers.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has voided President Donald Trump’s requirement that employers pay a staggering $100,000 fee when seeking certain new H-1B visas, concluding that the administration exceeded its legal authority.
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who determined that the fee effectively functioned as a tax and therefore could not be imposed unilaterally by the executive branch without approval from Congress. According to the court, only lawmakers have the constitutional authority to create such a financial requirement within federal immigration policy.
The court’s central finding was simple: the White House cannot create a new immigration tax on its own. That power belongs to Congress.
The controversial policy was introduced in September 2025 as part of the administration’s effort to curb what it described as overuse of the H-1B program, which allows U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign professionals in specialized fields such as technology, engineering, medicine and research.
Before the policy took effect, employers typically paid between roughly $2,000 and $5,000 in H-1B related government fees, depending on the circumstances of the application. The new requirement represented a dramatic increase that critics said would effectively shut many employers out of the program.
The lawsuit challenging the fee was brought by a coalition of 20 Democratic-led states, which argued that the policy would make it harder for hospitals, schools, universities and public agencies to recruit skilled workers from abroad. They also warned that the fee could worsen labor shortages in critical sectors.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who helped lead the legal challenge, welcomed the decision and argued that the fee undermined efforts to attract global talent and support innovation.
The administration defended the policy by saying it was intended to protect American workers and reduce reliance on foreign labor. White House officials have maintained that the H-1B system has been abused for years and argued that stronger restrictions were necessary.
Still, Judge Sorokin rejected the administration’s justification, writing that immigration laws did not give the president authority to impose what amounted to a new tax on employers seeking visas. The ruling invalidates the policy nationwide.
The decision is particularly significant for the technology industry.
Major companies including Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and other large employers have long relied on the H-1B program to recruit engineers, software developers, researchers and other specialized workers. Universities and medical institutions also use the program extensively to fill positions that can be difficult to staff domestically.
Industry groups had warned that the $100,000 fee would make hiring foreign talent financially impossible for many employers, especially smaller firms and research institutions. Some organizations reported sharp declines in H-1B usage after the fee was announced.
For employers that depend on specialized talent, the ruling removes one of the largest financial barriers ever imposed on the H-1B program.
The legal battle may not be over.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, setting up another court fight over executive authority and immigration policy. Similar lawsuits challenging the fee remain active in other jurisdictions, and conflicting rulings from different courts could eventually push the issue toward higher courts.
For now, however, the judge’s ruling represents a major victory for employers, universities and state governments that opposed the fee, while dealing a significant setback to one of the administration’s most controversial immigration initiatives.
