A federal judge in Boston struck down President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas Monday, delivering a significant legal defeat to an administration that has aggressively moved to curtail the program used by technology companies and other industries to hire highly skilled foreign workers. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin concluded that the fee amounted to an unauthorized tax — one that only Congress, not the executive branch, has the constitutional power to impose — and ordered both the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to cease implementing it.
The Proclamation That Started It All
The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, as Trump’s own proclamation acknowledged, was created to bring temporary workers into the United States to perform high-skilled functions, but the president argued it “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” Acting on that assertion, on September 19, 2025, Trump issued a Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” mandating that new H-1B petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 21, 2025 be accompanied by an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility.
The White House framed the move in stark workforce terms, pointing to data showing that the share of IT workers holding H-1B visas rose from 32 percent in fiscal year 2003 to over 65 percent in recent years, while unemployment among recent computer science graduates reached 6.1 percent — more than double the rates for biology or art history graduates. The administration argued that American companies had exploited the program by laying off domestic workers and filling those roles with cheaper foreign labor on H-1B status.
The Program and Its Stakes
The H-1B program offers 65,000 visas annually, with another 20,000 available for workers holding advanced degrees, approved for periods of three to six years. Prior to the proclamation, the fee applied only to new petitions — it did not affect previously issued H-1B visas, renewals, or petitions submitted before September 21, 2025, and it did not prevent current H-1B holders from traveling in and out of the United States. Before Trump’s order, employers sponsoring H-1B workers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees depending on company size and other factors — making the new $100,000 requirement a dramatic, roughly 20-to-50-fold increase in cost.
The Lawsuits Mount
The fee immediately drew legal fire from multiple directions. An early lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by a coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups — including the United Auto Workers union and the American Association of University Professors — who argued that Trump’s power to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals did not extend to overriding the law that created the H-1B program. Shortly after, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed its own separate challenge. In December 2025, California and a coalition of other states filed a third lawsuit, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office arguing that Trump lacked the power to impose the fee and that it violated federal law, which permits immigration authorities to collect only fees necessary to cover the cost of administering visa programs. That case was filed before Judge Sorokin in Boston and became the vehicle for Monday’s ruling.
The Administration’s Defense
The Trump administration defended the proclamation by invoking the president’s broad statutory authority under immigration law, arguing the fee constituted a lawful monetary penalty rather than a tax. Specifically, officials pointed to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which give the president power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he deems it detrimental to the interests of the United States. USCIS framed the fee as part of a broader reform agenda, noting that further steps contemplated by the proclamation include a Department of Labor rule making to raise prevailing wage levels and a Department of Homeland Security rule making to prioritize higher-skilled, better-paid workers in the H-1B lottery.
The Judge’s Ruling
Sorokin, an Obama appointee, was unconvinced. In a 42-page ruling, the judge agreed with the plaintiff states that the $100,000 fee amounted to an “unauthorized tax” rather than a “regulatory payment,” as the administration had characterized it, writing that “the President has no authority to levy a tax unless such a power is delegated by Congress through statute.”
The judge was direct about the character of the payment. “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. The ruling directed both the State Department and USCIS to halt implementation of the fee requirement. Critically, Sorokin drew a parallel to recent Supreme Court precedent: the judge noted that in a prior high court ruling, tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security were found to “amount to taxes for the purposes of the Constitution’s Taxing Clause,” and applied the same logic to strike down the H-1B fee.
Near-Zero Compliance Under the Fee
The ruling came against a backdrop of near-total industry resistance to the fee. Few employers had been willing to pay it since it took effect. As of February 15, USCIS had received just 85 payments of the $100,000 fee, according to an agency official’s statement in a March court filing. The fee’s chilling effect on H-1B filings had already been documented in court proceedings, with filings noting that the dramatic cost increase had significantly discouraged applications — a sign of the policy’s real-world impact even before any court acted.
White House Vows Appeal
The Trump administration showed no sign of accepting the ruling as final. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers issued a statement Monday asserting that the administration is confident Sorokin’s order will be reversed. “President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests, and that is exactly what he did,” Rogers said. The administration’s position is bolstered, at least in part, by a December ruling from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who rejected the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s separate challenge — a split in the federal courts that could ultimately push the question toward a higher tribunal.
State AGs Celebrate the Decision
The attorneys general who brought the case before Sorokin declared the ruling a decisive victory. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who helped lead the multi-state coalition, said the court had struck down Trump’s “unlawful and costly $100,000 tax.” “This tax was an attack on America’s ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,” Bonta said. New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office also played a central role in the litigation, said the court had “put an end to this administration’s illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible.”
A Broader Pattern of Judicial Pushback
Monday’s ruling is the latest in a string of federal court decisions limiting the scope of executive authority that the Trump administration has claimed in its immigration and economic agenda. Sorokin’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision as controlling precedent underscores how the judiciary has increasingly applied a consistent framework: when executive action operates in practice as a tax — regardless of how the White House labels it — only Congress can authorize it. That constitutional principle now looms over the administration’s broader immigration enforcement toolkit.
What Comes Next
With an appeal already signaled, the fate of the $100,000 H-1B fee will likely be decided at the circuit court level — and potentially beyond. Separately, the administration has continued pressing forward with other H-1B reforms, including a new USCIS final rule changing the process for awarding H-1B work visas, with officials stating they “will continue to demand more from both employers and aliens so as not to undercut American workers.” For now, however, Monday’s ruling removes one of the administration’s most aggressive tools in its effort to reshape the program — at least until the courts have the final word.