A US federal judge on 9 June struck down President Donald Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, ruling that the administration had exceeded its authority and imposed an unlawful tax without congressional approval — and the White House swiftly vowed to appeal the decision. The ruling, which vacates the policy nationwide, delivers a significant legal setback to one of Trump's most aggressive immigration enforcement measures.

The Court's Ruling

US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Massachusetts invalidated the policy in a sharply worded order, concluding that the administration had imposed a tax on H-1B petitions without the required delegation from Congress. 'The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,' Sorokin wrote. 'There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions.'

The judge rejected the administration's reliance on broad presidential immigration powers, noting that executive discretion 'may not transgress constitutional limitations' or 'the statutory authority conferred by Congress.' Sorokin specifically found that immigration statutes — including INA § 212(f) and 215(a) — did not confer authority on the President to impose such a charge, as these provisions could not be read as delegating Congress's exclusive power to tax.

The court also criticised the agencies that implemented the policy, finding they had bypassed required rulemaking procedures and failed to adequately justify the fee. At the conclusion of the ruling, Sorokin declared the policy 'unlawful' and vacated it 'in its entirety.'

What the White House Said

The administration pushed back forcefully within hours of the ruling. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said: '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 added that 'a federal judge in Washington already upheld a nearly identical order,' expressing confidence that the ruling would be reversed on appeal.

Rogers also defended the underlying policy rationale: 'The H-1B program has been abused for decades, and President Trump finally took action to fix it.' The White House did not specify a timeline for filing the appeal.

Background: The $100,000 Fee Proclamation

The contested policy stems from a proclamation signed by Trump in September 2025, which required employers filing new H-1B petitions to pay an additional $100,000 per application. The measure was framed as part of a broader effort to tighten oversight of the H-1B programme, which the administration has repeatedly characterised as susceptible to misuse by large outsourcing firms at the expense of American workers.

Notably, the administration cited a separate ruling by a federal judge in Washington that upheld a nearly identical order, setting up a potential circuit split that could eventually reach higher courts. This is the latest in a series of legal challenges to Trump's immigration agenda, several of which have produced conflicting lower-court outcomes.

Impact on Employers and Skilled Workers

The H-1B visa programme is widely used by Indian technology professionals and by US employers — particularly in the IT, engineering, and healthcare sectors — to hire skilled foreign workers. A $100,000 fee would have substantially raised the cost of sponsoring such workers, disproportionately affecting smaller firms and startups that rely on the programme.

With the policy now vacated nationwide, employers are not required to pay the additional fee pending the outcome of any appeal. However, legal uncertainty is expected to persist as the administration pursues higher courts. Industry groups and immigration lawyers are monitoring the appeal timeline closely.

What Comes Next

The administration has signalled it will continue defending the measure, though no appeal date has been announced. Given the conflicting lower-court rulings, legal experts expect the case to move through the appellate circuit and potentially set a precedent on the limits of presidential authority over immigration-related fees. The outcome will have direct consequences for thousands of employers and skilled workers navigating the H-1B system each year.