New H-1B Visa Decision: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 Fee

For employers that rely on H-1B talent, a federal judge’s decision to vacate the $100,000 H-1B fee removes a significant hiring barrier, though the legal fight is likely far from over. 

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston struck down the fee imposed on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling it was an unauthorized tax that Congress never approved. The decision vacates the fee nationwide.

Background: The $100,000 Fee and Its Impact on H-1B Filings

On Sept. 19, 2025, Trump signed a presidential proclamation adding a $100,000 fee on top of existing H-1B application costs, which had typically run between $2,000 and $5,000. The administration framed the fee as a way to discourage employers from hiring foreign workers and push them toward hiring Americans instead. Sponsoring employers would bear the cost.

The fee had a substantial chilling effect on filings. By February 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had received just 85 payments under the new fee structure – a stark drop from the thousands of petitions the program normally generates.

Court: The H-1B Visa Fee Was a Tax

Twenty Democratic state attorneys general filed suit challenging the fee. Judge Sorokin agreed with the states that the Trump administration exceeded its authority.

The core legal question was whether the $100,000 charge was a regulatory penalty (which a president has broader authority to impose) or a tax (which only Congress can levy). Sorokin concluded it was a tax. 

He leaned on the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate by classifying it as a tax rather than a penalty. Applying the Sebelius framework, Sorokin found the fee is not punishment for an unlawful act, which makes it a tax. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the president broad authority to restrict entry of noncitizens, but the court found those provisions do not clearly give the executive branch taxing power.

The Trump administration countered that the court had no authority to review a presidential immigration decision at all, arguing the action was unreviewable under the president’s broad immigration powers. Sorokin rejected that argument.

Why the Legal Picture Is Still Unsettled

Monday’s ruling isn’t the only H-1B fee case working its way through the courts. A separate legal challenge filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia went the other way: In December 2025, Judge Beryl Howell sided with the Trump administration, ruling the fee fell within presidential authority. That case is now before the D.C. Circuit, which heard oral arguments in March 2026 and has not yet ruled. 

That means two federal district courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same fee. An appeal of Monday’s ruling is expected. If the First Circuit ultimately reaches a different conclusion than the D.C. Circuit, the dispute could develop into a circuit split that increases the likelihood of Supreme Court review. 

HR Takeaways

“This ruling removes the immediate $100,000 barrier for new H-1B filings, but it does not remove uncertainty,” said attorney Leigh Ganchan, immigration shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Houston office.

“Employers now have an opportunity to reassess cases that were paused or abandoned, while keeping contingency plans in place in case a stay or appeal changes the current landscape,” she added.

For now, employers can move forward with new H-1B petitions without the additional $100,000 cost. Organizations that paused hiring, delayed offers or avoided sponsorship because of the fee may want to revisit those decisions, especially for hard-to-fill specialty occupation roles.  

“For HR teams, this turns the H-1B issue from a hard cost-prohibition problem into a timing, documentation, and risk-management problem,” Ganchan said. 

“The practical HR takeaway is not that the problem is eliminated, but that employers may have a chance to reopen the pipeline with guardrails,” she added.

For workforce planning, Ganchan said HR teams may want to:

• Identify affected candidates and roles
• Flag time-sensitive cases
• Monitor legal developments before initiating new consular H-1B filings, as USCIS has not yet issued operational guidance, and
• Consider premium processing when timing is critical.

Employers that put H-1B cases on hold because of the fee may also want to review those cases now. The appropriate next step may depend on whether a petition was delayed, withdrawn or never filed, as well as whether the worker is located outside the U.S.

“A useful first step is an H-1B inventory; which cases were delayed, which were withdrawn, which were never filed, and which roles are business-critical,” Ganchan said.

HR’s Compliance Toolkit: Stay Ahead of Changing Federal and State Regulations

California v. Mullin, Civil No. 25-13829-LTS (D. Mass. June 8, 2026).