A US federal court has struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 H-1B visa fee requirement, with US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruling on 9 June that the charge amounted to an unauthorised tax imposed without congressional approval. The 42-page ruling declared the policy unlawful and vacated it nationwide, marking a significant check on executive authority in immigration matters.

The Core Legal Finding

Judge Sorokin concluded that the administration's H-1B policy crossed a constitutional line by levying a tax — a power exclusively assigned to Congress under the US Constitution. 'The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,' he wrote. 'There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions.'

The ruling drew a sharp distinction between immigration restrictions — which presidents may lawfully impose — and taxation, which they may not. 'Taxes are not restrictions,' Sorokin wrote, directly rebutting the administration's framing of the charge as a permissible entry condition.

What the Administration Argued

The Trump administration contended that the $100,000 fee fell within the President's broad authority to regulate the entry of foreign nationals. It cited Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as statutory backing.

Sorokin rejected that reading, finding that those provisions authorise the President to impose restrictions, rules, regulations, and limitations on entry — but contain no language explicitly delegating the power to create a new tax. 'These considerations preclude reading INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a) as delegating Congress's exclusive power to tax,' he wrote.

Limits of Presidential Immigration Authority

A substantial portion of the ruling addressed the constitutional boundaries of executive power in immigration. While acknowledging that 'the Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens,' Sorokin emphasised that 'that discretion is not boundless' and 'may not transgress constitutional limitations or the statutory authority conferred by Congress.'

This framing is notable because it does not dispute presidential authority over immigration broadly — it draws a line specifically at the taxing power, which the Constitution vests exclusively in the legislature.

Procedural Failures Also Cited

Beyond the constitutional question, the court found that federal agencies implementing the policy had failed to follow required rulemaking procedures and had not adequately justified the dramatic increase in costs imposed on employers seeking H-1B workers. This procedural finding provides an additional, independent basis for the ruling's invalidation of the policy.

Wider Implications

The decision is expected to be closely watched beyond the H-1B programme. By reaffirming Congress's exclusive constitutional role in taxation and setting limits on how far immigration statutes can be stretched to justify executive action, the ruling could influence challenges to other executive-imposed charges in immigration and related policy areas. The policy was vacated in its entirety and applies nationwide.