On June 8, 2026, a U.S. federal court struck down a Trump administration policy requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee per H-1B visa petition, ruling that the executive branch lacked authority to impose the measure. The court has vacated the policy effective immediately.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, found that the fee amounted to an unauthorized tax that only Congress has the power to enact.
Background
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign professionals in specialized fields such as technology, engineering, and healthcare. Historically, government filing fees ranged from approximately $2,000 to $5,000 per petition.
In September 2025, the administration introduced a dramatic fee increase to $100,000 per application, citing goals of:
- Reducing reliance on foreign labor
- Encouraging companies to hire and train U.S. workers
The policy had an immediate impact. By early 2026, only a small number of employers had proceeded with consular filings under the new fee structure.
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general challenged the measure, arguing that it exceeded presidential authority and violated constitutional limits on taxation.
The case is State of California et al v. Mullin, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 25-cv-13829.
Court’s Reasoning: No Authority to Impose a Tax
In a detailed ruling, the court concluded that:
- The H-1B fee functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory fee
- Congress did not delegate authority to the president to impose such a charge
- Immigration statutes, while broad, do not grant power to unilaterally raise revenue
Judge Sorokin rejected the government’s argument that existing immigration law provides “sweeping” authority to restrict foreign entry through financial measures.
The court emphasized that taxation authority remains exclusively with Congress, regardless of immigration policy goals.
Earlier Hearing
During prior court proceedings, the judge expressed concern about the breadth of the government’s position, questioning whether it would allow:
- Unlimited financial barriers to immigration
- Extreme hypothetical measures to restrict foreign entry
Government counsel argued that the president’s authority under immigration law is broad, while challengers maintained that such an interpretation would effectively allow the executive branch to circumvent Congress on taxation policy.
What’s Next
The ruling restores the previous fee structure and removes a significant financial barrier to using the H-1B program.
Further developments may follow if the government appeals or seeks alternative policy approaches.
Erickson Insights and Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.