A federal judge in Boston has vacated the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the president lacks the power to impose what the court called a tax without approval from Congress.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, sided with 20 Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the policy in a lawsuit arguing it would cripple hiring across education, health care, universities, and research fields. The ruling lands a direct blow to one of the administration's signature efforts to reduce corporate reliance on foreign white-collar labor and steer employers toward American workers.
Sorokin found that the $100,000 charge functioned as a tax on H-1B petitions, not a lawful immigration fee, and that the executive branch had no congressional authorization to impose it. In his decision, as reported by the AP, the judge wrote plainly:
"The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress."
The distinction between a fee and a tax is not academic. Under longstanding constitutional principles, only Congress holds the power to levy taxes. Executive agencies can charge fees for services, but those fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing the service. Sorokin concluded the $100,000 figure bore no such relationship and instead operated as a revenue tool designed to discourage H-1B usage altogether.
The judge also found the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how agencies create and implement regulations. That statute requires notice-and-comment rulemaking for major policy changes, a process the administration did not follow here.
Sorokin ordered the policy materials implementing the fee requirement vacated entirely. As Breitbart reported, the judge wrote:
"The Court VACATES the Policy materials implementing the Proclamation's $100,000 payment requirement."
The Trump administration framed the fee as a tool to protect American jobs. Officials argued that employers had grown too comfortable importing cheaper skilled labor through the H-1B program rather than hiring and training domestic workers. The $100,000 price tag was meant to force companies to think twice before filing petitions for foreign employees.
The Department of Homeland Security wasted no time pushing back on the ruling. In a statement, the agency called the decision judicial overreach and signaled it would not stand, as Fox News reported:
"This blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump's historic efforts for immigration reform."
The White House and DHS both indicated they expect the ruling to be reversed on appeal. That confidence is not unfounded. Another federal court had already upheld the fee hike in a separate challenge, creating a split in the lower courts that could eventually force an appellate resolution or even draw the attention of the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was filed by 20 Democratic state attorneys general who argued the fee would devastate employers in their states. The Washington Examiner noted that the coalition framed the $100,000 charge as an unauthorized tax rather than a legitimate immigration penalty, a legal theory Sorokin adopted wholesale.
The states argued that hospitals, universities, tech firms, and research institutions depend on H-1B workers to fill positions where qualified American candidates are scarce. A $100,000 surcharge per petition, they claimed, would price out smaller employers and public institutions that cannot absorb that cost, leaving critical positions unfilled.
Business groups piled on as well. Newsmax reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also challenged the policy, joining the chorus of plaintiffs who said the fee would harm employers seeking skilled talent across multiple industries.
At its core, this case turns on a question conservatives have debated for years: how much unilateral power the executive branch should wield over immigration policy. The administration's position rests on broad readings of presidential authority over immigration, an area where courts have historically granted the executive wide latitude. But Sorokin drew a hard line at the taxing power, ruling that no amount of immigration authority allows a president to impose what amounts to a tax without Congress saying so first.
That reasoning puts the ruling squarely within a framework many conservatives would normally applaud: separation of powers, congressional supremacy over taxation, and limits on executive overreach. The tension here is that those principles collided with a policy designed to serve a goal most conservatives support, protecting American workers from being undercut by cheaper foreign labor.
Sorokin's opinion did not question whether reducing H-1B dependency is a legitimate policy goal. He ruled only that the mechanism chosen to achieve it exceeded the president's authority. The administration could, in theory, pursue the same objective through legislation or through a properly noticed rulemaking process. Whether it will take either path remains unclear.
The ruling creates an immediate legal wrinkle. Because a separate federal court previously upheld the $100,000 fee, two district judges have now reached opposite conclusions on the same policy. That kind of split typically accelerates appellate review. If different circuit courts of appeals also disagree, the Supreme Court may eventually need to settle the question.
For now, Sorokin's vacatur applies nationwide because he struck down the policy materials themselves rather than simply blocking enforcement in the 20 plaintiff states. The practical effect is that the $100,000 fee cannot be collected unless a higher court reverses the decision or issues a stay pending appeal.
Investigators and legal observers will need to watch whether the administration seeks an emergency stay from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal courts in Massachusetts. A stay would pause the ruling's effect and allow the fee to remain in place while the appeal proceeds. Without one, employers filing H-1B petitions will not face the surcharge.
This is not the first time Judge Sorokin has blocked a Trump immigration initiative. He previously struck down the administration's executive order on birthright citizenship, another policy that tested the boundaries of presidential power. The pattern has drawn sharp criticism from the White House, which views Sorokin and judges like him as obstacles placed by a prior administration to frustrate the current president's agenda.
The H-1B program has long been a flashpoint. Tech companies and universities defend it as essential for attracting global talent. Critics, including many in the Trump coalition, argue it has become a loophole that lets corporations replace American workers with cheaper foreign employees. The $100,000 fee was the administration's most aggressive attempt yet to reshape the program without waiting for Congress to act.
That impatience may have been the policy's undoing. Courts have shown increasing willingness to enforce procedural requirements against executive action, regardless of the policy's popularity. The Administrative Procedure Act exists precisely to prevent agencies from making sweeping changes through proclamation rather than through the deliberative rulemaking process Congress designed.
The administration has made clear it will appeal. The First Circuit will likely hear arguments in the coming months. If it reverses Sorokin, the fee could snap back into effect. If it affirms, the split with the other district court ruling deepens, and the path to the Supreme Court shortens.
Meanwhile, employers who paused H-1B filings because of the $100,000 cost may now rush to submit petitions before any appellate court reinstates the fee. That creates its own set of complications for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which must process applications under rules that could change again at any moment.
Congress could also step in. Legislation imposing a fee or restructuring the H-1B program entirely would sidestep the constitutional objection Sorokin identified. But immigration legislation has been stuck in congressional gridlock for years, and there is little sign that dynamic will change soon.
When a judge tells a president he cannot protect American jobs the way he wants to, the question is not whether the goal was wrong. The question is whether the next move comes from the courtroom, the Oval Office, or the one branch that actually holds the power of the purse.
