U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin voided President Trump’s $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas, ruling that the President lacked authority to impose the policy for a program used by companies to hire highly skilled foreign workers in specialized fields. The ruling blocks enforcement of the fee effective immediately and has significant implications for H-1B petition filings and employer costs.
What changed
Judge Sorokin held that only Congress has the power to change federal immigration policy to include such a requirement, which he viewed as a tax, and that lawmakers had not given the executive branch permission to unilaterally make the change. The judge declared that the policy violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.
The lawsuit was brought by twenty states challenging the government’s attempt to require employers to pay $100,000 for certain new H-1B petitions. The court said the $100,000 payment requirement amounts to a tax, not a penalty, and that taxes are controlled by Congress, not the President.
The court also found violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agencies did not go through proper notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementing this major new requirement.
Why it matters
This ruling eliminates a significant cost barrier that was suppressing H-1B petition volume. The fee increase dramatically reduced the number of H-1B visa requests; as of February 15, USCIS had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee, down from hundreds of requests it usually receives.
For employers and immigration counsel, the decision restores the pre-September 2025 fee structure for H-1B petitions. The court emphasized that “Hiring workers pursuant to the H-1B program is plainly lawful” and a President cannot practically destroy a congressionally created program by adding an unauthorized financial barrier. This reasoning protects the core H-1B statutory framework from executive attempts to price it out of reach.
The ruling also reinforces that separation-of-powers constraints apply even to broad immigration authority statutes. Although the government argued that the President had broad authority under INA Section 212(f) and Section 215(a) to restrict the entry of foreign nationals, the court held that those provisions do not delegate Congress’s taxing power.
Way forward
-
Recalculate H-1B costs for pending and future petitions immediately. Confirm with USCIS whether the standard H-1B filing fees apply or whether any interim guidance modifies the fee structure during appeals.
-
Verify your pending petition status if you filed after September 2025. If you paid the $100,000 fee, monitor for refund procedures; USCIS will likely issue guidance on reimbursement.
-
Monitor the appeal. The government said it would appeal the decision. The injunction may be stayed on appeal, so do not assume the fee is permanently dead until appellate proceedings resolve.
-
Preserve the record if you filed H-1B petitions during the fee period. Document your costs and any business impact for potential refund claims or class-action participation.
Disclaimer
This article is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and subject to rapid change, especially during active litigation and appeals. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation and verify all guidance against the primary source linked above and current USCIS announcements. The injunction issued today may be modified, stayed, or reversed on appeal, and the Trump administration may pursue legislative solutions. Do not make final filing decisions based on this article alone.