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

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration's controversial $100,000 fee on certain new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the executive branch exceeded its authority by imposing the charge without congressional approval.

In a June 8 decision, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts sided with a coalition of 20 states that challenged the policy. The court vacated the fee nationwide, finding that the administration lacked authority to impose the requirement.

The ruling is a major setback for the policy, but it is unlikely to be the final word. Other federal courts have reached different conclusions, and legal experts expect further appeals.

Not sure how this ruling affects your hiring plans? Boundless helps employers and professionals navigate H-1B visas and other employment-based immigration pathways. Learn more about your options and check your eligibility.

What Is the $100,000 H-1B Fee?

The fee was introduced through a presidential proclamation in September 2025 as part of a broader effort to restrict immigration and prioritize U.S. workers.

Under the policy, employers filing certain new H-1B petitions were required to pay an additional $100,000 fee on top of existing filing costs, which already run into the thousands of dollars.

The administration argued that the measure would discourage employers from hiring foreign workers when qualified U.S. workers were available.

Critics said the fee would make it significantly harder for employers, universities, hospitals, and public agencies to hire highly skilled workers through the H-1B program.

The policy led to lawsuits from states, business groups, labor organizations, and others who argued that the fee exceeded the administration's authority and would disrupt industries that rely on highly skilled talent.

Why the Court Struck It Down

The states challenging the policy characterized the fee as a tax and argued that only Congress holds the power to impose such a tax.

Judge Sorokin agreed, finding that the administration exceeded its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court concluded that the administration could not impose a major new financial requirement on H-1B petitions without authorization from Congress.

As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the states and vacated the policy nationwide.

Why the Legal Fight Isn't Over

The Massachusetts ruling is not the only court decision involving the $100,000 fee.

In a separate lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a federal court in Washington, D.C. upheld the policy. Another challenge is still pending in federal court in California.

As a result, courts in different parts of the country are now evaluating the same policy and reaching different conclusions. According to Boundless attorneys, the Massachusetts ruling is expected to factor into the other pending cases. With federal courts reaching different conclusions about the same policy, appellate review appears increasingly likely and could ultimately set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.

For now, the Massachusetts ruling vacates the policy nationwide, but the broader legal battle remains unresolved.

"This ruling is a significant setback for the administration's effort to impose the fee, but it's probably not the final chapter," said Xiao Wang, CEO of Boundless Immigration. "Employers should view this as an important development while recognizing that additional court decisions could still reshape the outcome."

What It Means for Employers

For now, employers filing new H-1B petitions are not expected to pay the supplemental $100,000 fee covered by the ruling. However, because appeals are expected and related litigation remains active, employers should continue monitoring developments closely.

What Happens Next?

The Department of Homeland Security has criticized the ruling and said it expects the decision to be overturned on appeal.

Meanwhile, related lawsuits continue to move through the courts. Because judges have reached different conclusions about the legality of the fee, employers and foreign workers should expect continued uncertainty in the months ahead.

Another factor is timing. The original proclamation establishing the fee is scheduled to expire in September 2026. That means the legal challenges could move quickly in the coming months. The administration could continue defending the policy in court, allow it to expire as scheduled, or seek to extend it through new executive action.

The next phase of the litigation will likely focus on whether appellate courts agree with the Massachusetts ruling or the earlier decision that upheld the fee.

Boundless will continue monitoring the litigation and provide updates as new details emerge.

{{cta-component-horizontal-aligned}}

‍