A federal judge on Monday vacated President Trump’s $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, ruling that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled in a lawsuit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general that Trump exceeded his authority with his September executive order raising the annual H-1B fee. This decision significantly impacts employment-based visa planning for employers and practitioners advising on labor-based immigration.
What changed
Judge Leo Sorokin declared in the ruling in U.S. District Court in Boston that the policy implementing the large fees on high-skilled worker visas violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. The judge wrote “the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called.” Sorokin agreed with the 20 Democratic-led states that brought the suit in finding that Congress had not delegated the power to impose taxes to the executive branch.
He ordered the required visa payment to be set aside in its entirety, relief that is allowed under the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling vacates the $100,000 fee imposed by Trump’s September 2025 proclamation, which had been in effect since September 21, 2025.
Why it matters
Prior to the change, H-1B visa fees had ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 per application. The $100,000 fee created a severe economic barrier to H-1B sponsorship, and several companies, including Walmart, said that they would pause their participation in the H-1B program as a result.
This decision is critical for employers planning labor-based sponsorships. The fee is now void, meaning employers filing new H-1B petitions should no longer be required to pay the $100,000 amount. However, practitioners should note that the White House vowed to appeal the ruling, so the fee structure may remain in flux during litigation.
Additionally, the judge cited precedent that the Supreme Court set in February, when it struck down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on the grounds that he lacked the legal authority to impose them, noting that tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security “amount to taxes for the purposes of the Constitution’s Taxing Clause”. This signals judges will closely scrutinize future executive actions framed as regulatory fees if they function as revenue measures.
Way forward
-
Clarify current fee obligations with USCIS: Confirm with your USCIS Service Center whether the $100,000 fee is suspended, waived, or refunded for petitions already submitted. Do not assume employers should stop paying without official guidance.
-
Review pending I-129 packets: If you have H-1B petitions pending under the $100,000 fee framework, consider whether to request a fee adjustment or refund based on the ruling.
-
Monitor the appeal: Another judge who oversees a challenge to the H-1B visa fees brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities sided with the administration, ruling Trump was within his authority. An appeals court heard the Chamber’s bid to revive its case in March. It could rule at any time. Track the appellate docket for further developments.
-
Plan ahead with fee uncertainty: Until the appeal is resolved, advise clients that H-1B sponsorship costs may change again. Budget conservatively and be prepared to adjust filing timelines as the legal landscape shifts.
Disclaimer
This article explains a court ruling on USCIS policy; it is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess how this decision affects your specific situation, and verify all information against the primary court filing and USCIS updates. Immigration policy can change without notice, and this ruling may be overturned on appeal.