A US federal judge on 9 June struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the White House had exceeded its authority by imposing what amounted to an unauthorised tax without congressional approval. The decision is a significant legal setback for the administration's immigration agenda.

What the Court Ruled

US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Massachusetts sided with a coalition of 20 states that had challenged the policy, vacating it nationwide. In his ruling, Sorokin was unambiguous: 'The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress. There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions.'

The fee had originated from a September 2025 presidential proclamation requiring employers filing new H-1B petitions to make an additional $100,000 payment on top of existing charges. The administration had defended the measure by arguing that the H-1B programme was being exploited to displace American workers and suppress wages, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Why the Fee Was Declared Unlawful

Judge Sorokin rejected the government's central argument that broad presidential powers under immigration law permitted the fee as a condition of entry into the United States. 'While the Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens, . . . that discretion is not boundless,' he wrote, adding that such discretion 'may not transgress constitutional limitations' or 'the statutory authority conferred by Congress.'

At the core of the case was whether the payment constituted a legitimate immigration restriction or an unauthorised tax. Sorokin concluded it was the latter. 'Taxes are not "restrictions,"' he wrote, rejecting the administration's reading of presidential powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The judge found that Congress had never delegated its taxing authority to the President through the immigration statutes cited — specifically INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a).

Beyond the constitutional questions, the court found that federal agencies had also violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by implementing the policy without following the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. The court further found the policy arbitrary and capricious, noting that the administrative record contained no adequate explanation for the unprecedented cost increase imposed on employers.

Impact on Education, Healthcare, and Research

The 20-state coalition had argued that the fee would severely hamper public schools, universities, and healthcare systems in recruiting skilled foreign professionals, deepening existing staffing shortages. The court agreed, finding that the policy threatened to impede hiring across education, academic research, and healthcare sectors.

Notably, this ruling lands at a time when US institutions — particularly in healthcare and higher education — are already grappling with workforce gaps that have historically been filled through the H-1B pathway. For Indian technology professionals, who account for a disproportionately large share of H-1B approvals each year, the vacating of the fee removes a major financial barrier that had effectively priced out smaller employers and public-sector institutions.

The H-1B Programme and What Comes Next

The H-1B programme allows US employers to hire foreign nationals in speciality occupations requiring highly specialised knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent. Congress currently caps most new H-1B visas at 65,000 annually, with an additional 20,000 reserved for holders of advanced US degrees. Universities, affiliated non-profit institutions, and certain research organisations are exempt from these annual caps.

As a remedy, Judge Sorokin declared the policy unlawful and vacated all agency actions implementing the payment requirement in its entirety. The administration has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the ruling. Legal analysts expect the Justice Department to challenge the decision, which could carry the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the US Supreme Court.