U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin on Monday struck down a 100,000 dollar fee that President Donald Trump imposed on new H-1B visa applications, ruling that the charge constituted an unlawful tax that Congress never authorized the executive branch to levy.

The decision, issued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, invalidated the fee Trump announced on September 19, 2025, along with all implementing guidance, memoranda, and instructions from federal agencies.

The case was filed in December 2025 by 20 state attorneys general, led by California, who argued the fee violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The states named Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and several other federal officials as defendants.

How the H-1B Program Functioned Before Trump’s Fee

The H-1B visa program, created by Congress in 1990, allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring theoretical or technical expertise.

Congress capped the program at 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

Before Trump’s proclamation, employers typically paid between 960 and 7,595 dollars in fees per H-1B application, depending on company size and other factors. The standard range was 2,000 to 5,000 dollars, according to court filings.

The visas are approved for three to six years and are heavily used by technology companies. From 2024 through mid-2025, Amazon received 19,301 H-1B approvals, more than any other major tech firm, while Microsoft secured 9,914 and Apple obtained 8,075, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

Trump’s Proclamation and the Government’s Legal Defense

Trump issued his September 2025 proclamation arguing that the H-1B program had been deliberately exploited to replace American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor, undermining both economic and national security.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services implemented the 100,000 dollar fee almost immediately. The agency announced on October 1, 2025, that the charge would apply to all new applications filed on or after September 21, 2025, just two days after Trump’s announcement.

The administration moved forward without any notice-and-comment period, a process typically required under the Administrative Procedure Act that allows the public to review and provide feedback on proposed federal rules.

In court, the Trump administration defended the fee by arguing it constituted a monetary penalty, not a tax, and that the president possessed lawful authority under federal immigration law to restrict entry of certain foreign nationals.

The government maintained that Trump could impose such a penalty to deter what the administration characterized as abuse of the H-1B system.

Judge Sorokin’s Reasoning: Tax or Penalty

Sorokin, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2013, rejected the administration’s argument in a 42-page decision.

The judge wrote that the substance and application of the 100,000 dollar payment revealed it functioned as a tax, regardless of what the government called it.

He found that the fee aimed to raise revenue from a lawful program rather than to punish illegal conduct. Hiring workers through the H-1B program remains entirely legal under federal law.

“Here, the 100,000 dollar payment requirement for all H-1B petitions does not aim to establish that hiring H-1B workers is illegal,’ Sorokin wrote. ‘The payment is not a penalty because it is not punishment for an unlawful act or omission.”

The judge cited the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs on imports from most countries. In that case, the high court ruled that tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security amounted to taxes for purposes of the Constitution’s Taxing Clause.

Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress holds the power to impose taxes or delegate that authority to executive agencies. Sorokin concluded that Congress had provided no such authorization for the H-1B fee.

The decision also found the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing the required notice-and-comment process. Sorokin wrote that the agencies implementing the fee failed to adequately explain their reasoning, consider alternative options, or assess potential consequences.

“The mere fact that Defendants followed a presidential directive does not grant them free rein to ignore the requirements of the APA,” he stated.

Evidence of the Fee’s Impact on Visa Applications

Court filings revealed that the dramatic fee increase sharply curtailed H-1B applications. As of February 15, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had received just 85 payments of the 100,000 dollar fee, totaling 8.5 million dollars in collected revenue.

By comparison, the program normally processes applications for all 85,000 available visas during each fiscal year’s cap season.

Several major employers, including Walmart, announced they would pause participation in the H-1B program following Trump’s proclamation.

The 20 states that filed the lawsuit argued the fee hampered their ability to hire high-skilled workers in critical areas, including primary and secondary education, public colleges and universities, and medical facilities.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the ruling that thousands of people with H-1B visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers, and other skilled workers daily. She characterized the decision as putting an end to an illegal attempt to destroy a critical program.

White House Response and Appeal Plans

Trump responded to the decision when questioned by reporters in New York on Monday afternoon, expressing frustration with federal judges who have blocked multiple administration initiatives in May and June 2026.

“These federal judges are really giving us a hard time,’ Trump said. ‘It’s really crazy what’s going on with the court system. They’re hurting our country very badly.”

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers issued a statement asserting that President Trump possesses clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests.

“The H-1B program has been abused for decades, and President Trump finally took action to fix it,’ Rogers said. ‘A federal judge in Washington already upheld a nearly identical order, and the Administration is confident this order will be reversed on appeal.”

The Department of Homeland Security called Sorokin’s decision blatant judicial activism in a statement and defended the immigration reforms.

The Trump administration plans to file an appeal, which would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.

Parallel Litigation from Business Groups

The case decided Monday was not the only legal challenge to the H-1B fee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed its own lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the 100,000 dollar policy.

That separate case remains pending and raises similar constitutional and administrative law questions about presidential authority to impose fees without congressional authorization.

Technology industry groups and business associations have consistently opposed the fee, arguing it disrupts workforce planning and damages U.S. competitiveness in attracting global talent.

Implications for Immigration Policy and Presidential Authority

Sorokin’s decision adds to a growing body of case law limiting unilateral executive action on immigration matters when such actions lack clear statutory authorization from Congress.

The ruling reinforces that even when a president invokes national security or economic justifications, federal courts will scrutinize whether the specific action falls within delegated powers.

The decision parallels other setbacks the Trump administration faced in federal court during late May and early June 2026. Judges ordered the removal of Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., blocked a Department of Justice Anti-Weaponization fund set up to settle a lawsuit he filed against the IRS, and issued other restraining orders against administration policies.

The H-1B ruling also highlights the importance of administrative procedure requirements. Even when an agency acts pursuant to a presidential directive, it must still comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking when imposing significant new regulatory burdens.

For employers who paid the 100,000 dollar fee between September 2025 and June 2026, the ruling creates questions about potential refunds. Sorokin’s order voided the fee entirely under the Administrative Procedure Act, which typically allows for retroactive relief.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security has addressed whether employers who already paid the fee will receive refunds while the appeal proceeds.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an H-1B visa and who qualifies for one?

An H-1B visa is a temporary work authorization that allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience. These occupations include roles in technology, engineering, medicine, education, and other fields requiring specialized knowledge. The program caps annual approvals at 65,000 visas, plus an additional 20,000 for workers with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. Visas are typically granted for three years and can be extended up to six years total.

Why did the judge rule the fee was a tax rather than a penalty?

Judge Sorokin determined the 100,000 dollar charge functioned as a tax because it aimed to raise revenue from a lawful activity rather than punish illegal conduct. Hiring H-1B workers remains completely legal under federal law, so the payment could not be characterized as punishment for wrongdoing. The judge noted that the fee’s structure, purpose, and application all pointed to it being a revenue-raising measure. Under the Constitution’s Taxing Clause, only Congress can impose taxes or delegate that power to agencies, which it never did for the H-1B fee.

What happens to the 85 payments already collected under the fee?

The court order voided the fee entirely, creating potential grounds for refunds to the 85 employers who paid the 100,000 dollar charge between September 2025 and February 2026. Administrative Procedure Act remedies typically allow for retroactive relief when a rule is set aside. However, the Trump administration’s planned appeal may delay any refund process. Neither U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services nor the Department of Homeland Security has announced a refund procedure as of June 10, 2026.

Conclusion

Judge Sorokin’s Monday ruling represents a significant defeat for the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape immigration policy through executive action. The decision affirms that presidential authority in immigration matters, while broad, remains constrained by constitutional limits on taxation and administrative law requirements.

The appeal to the First Circuit will determine whether this ruling stands or whether the administration can find a path to impose heightened fees on employers seeking H-1B workers. Until that appeal concludes, the H-1B program reverts to its pre-September 2025 fee structure, removing what had become a substantial barrier to hiring foreign workers in specialty occupations.