A federal judge in Boston has struck down the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, ruling that the policy exceeded executive authority and violated federal rulemaking law. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin sided with 20 states that challenged the fee, concluding that the administration could not impose what amounted to a tax on H-1B petitions without clear authorization from Congress.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign workers for jobs that are difficult to fill domestically. It is heavily used by technology companies, but it also supports hiring in healthcare, education, research and other specialized fields. Workers from India receive nearly three-quarters of H-1B approvals, making the program especially important for global talent flows into the U.S. economy.
The Trump administration introduced the much higher fee in September as part of its broader effort to restrict immigration and discourage companies from hiring foreign workers instead of Americans. Officials argued that the H-1B system had been abused by employers seeking cheaper labor, especially in the technology sector. The White House proclamation said H-1B abuse had made it harder for U.S. college graduates to find IT jobs and allowed employers to hire foreign workers at a discount.
But the judge rejected the administration’s legal reasoning. Sorokin wrote that the policy imposed a tax on H-1B petitions without the required delegation from Congress. He also found that the executive branch violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that governs how federal agencies create regulations. That means the problem was not only the size of the fee, but the way the administration tried to impose it through executive action rather than legislation.
The ruling contradicts an earlier federal court decision that had upheld the fee hike, meaning the legal fight is likely not over. The White House expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal, while the Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision as judicial overreach. For now, however, the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are barred from enforcing the fee.
The fee had caused confusion and panic among employers, students and foreign workers when it was announced. Before the increase, most H-1B applications cost several thousand dollars. A sudden jump to $100,000 threatened to make the program unaffordable for universities, hospitals, smaller businesses and startups, even if large technology companies could still absorb the cost.
The states that sued argued that the fee would make it harder to recruit essential professionals, including doctors, teachers and researchers. Medical groups also welcomed the ruling, warning that the policy could worsen physician shortages and limit access to care in underserved areas.
Overall, the decision is a major setback for Trump’s attempt to reshape the H-1B program through unilateral executive power. The case also highlights the deeper political divide over skilled immigration: supporters say H-1B visas help the U.S. attract talent and stay competitive, while critics argue the program can undercut American workers. The court did not settle that policy debate, but it made one thing clear: a president cannot impose a massive visa fee without Congress.
