A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has struck down the Trump Administration’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, finding it exceeds executive authority. Judge H. Lee Sarokin ruled that the plan is illegal because it usurps Congress’s power to tax. The decision immediately affects how you cost out H-1B petitions and advise clients on visa application expenses.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston struck down a $100,000 fee President Trump imposed on new H-1B visas, concluding it constituted an unlawful tax Congress never authorized, in a lawsuit filed by 20 Democratic state attorneys general.
The judge found that “the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called”. The court found that INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a) do not delegate taxing power to the President, noting that these sections allow the President to impose “restrictions,” “rules,” “regulations,” “orders,” “limitations,” and “exceptions” to entry, but none of these terms, by their ordinary meaning, include the power to tax.
The court also ruled the imposition of the $100,000 fee violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge ordered the required visa payment to be set aside in its entirety, relief that is allowed under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal. The judge cited precedent set by the Supreme Court in February, when it struck down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on the grounds that tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security “amount to taxes for the purposes of the Constitution’s Taxing Clause”.
Why it matters
The $100,000 fee, which Trump signed as a proclamation in September, fundamentally changed the economics of H-1B sponsorship. The increase in fees discouraged H-1B visa requests, and as of February 15, USCIS had received just 85 payments of the $100,000 fee.
Now that the fee is vacated nationwide, employers revert to standard USCIS filing fees without the $100,000 surcharge. For practitioners, this means:
- Immediate cost revision: Update client budgets and fee estimates to remove the $100,000 component.
- Pending cases: If you filed H-1B petitions under the fee regime or advised clients to await the court’s decision, you can now proceed at the base filing fee.
- Retroactive implications: Clarify with clients and payroll whether the $100,000 paid (if any) is recoverable or refundable; the order vacates the requirement but does not automatically address already-paid fees.
- Appeal timeline: The administration plans to appeal, so the landscape may shift again. Monitor the appeal docket in California v. Mullin, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Way forward
- Review and update your fee schedules for all H-1B petitions (I-129 and related forms) to reflect the removal of the $100,000 fee. Communicate the change to clients immediately.
- Advise employers considering H-1B sponsorship that the baseline cost has dropped significantly; if prior uncertainty deterred sponsorship decisions, revisit those cases.
- Track the appeal in the District of Massachusetts; the Supreme Court’s recent Learning Resources tariff decision provides persuasive precedent that may shape the appeal outcome.
- Preserve documentation of any $100,000 fees already paid or pending payment, for potential refund claims or client correspondence.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. The information above summarizes a federal court decision and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction. Immigration policy can change without notice, and court decisions may be reversed or appealed. You must verify all information against the primary source linked above, and consult an immigration attorney before making filing or strategic decisions.