Court Strikes Down Trump's $100,000 H-1B Fee — What It Means for Skilled Workers
- 19 cze
- 4 minut(y) czytania
June 19, 2026 | Breaking News | United States
A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling it an unconstitutional tax imposed without congressional authorization. The decision — issued June 8, 2026 by Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court in Boston — is effective immediately, though the administration has signaled it will appeal.
The ruling is a direct victory for hospitals, universities, and technology companies that had paused or cancelled H-1B sponsorships since September 2025, when the fee was introduced via presidential proclamation. Walmart was among the companies that publicly suspended participation in the H-1B program in response.
How the $100,000 Fee Came About
On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10973 adding a $100,000 surcharge to new H-1B petitions filed by employers. The administration framed the fee as a measure to prevent the "misuse" of the program and protect American workers from large-scale replacement by foreign nationals.
Before the proclamation, H-1B petition costs ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. The new fee represented a 20x to 50x increase overnight — a level that immediately placed the program out of reach for smaller employers, nonprofits, and public institutions operating on fixed budgets.
The fee applied specifically to new H-1B petitions for workers subject to consular processing — meaning workers outside the United States or required to go through consular processing. Extensions, changes of employer, and changes of status were carved out.
Why the Court Said It Was Unlawful
Judge Sorokin's ruling turns on a foundational constitutional distinction: the difference between a regulatory fee and a tax.
The court concluded that the $100,000 payment raised revenue rather than simply covering an agency service or regulating conduct. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to lay and collect taxes belongs exclusively to Congress — not the executive branch. Because the proclamation bypassed Congress to impose what the court determined was a tax, it exceeded presidential authority.
The court also found that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — the same statute that courts have repeatedly used to strike down other Trump administration immigration policies in 2025 and 2026.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general led by California. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the ruling "a court put[ting] an end to this administration's illegal attempt to destroy this critical program."
The Legal Landscape Is Complicated
The June 8 Boston ruling is not the only word on this fee. The legal picture is split across three federal courts:
Boston (Massachusetts): Struck down the fee — today's ruling. Summary judgment for plaintiff states.
Washington D.C.: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce separately sued and lost at summary judgment level — the D.C. court upheld the fee. That case is now on appeal, and the fee remains in effect in that circuit until overturned.
San Francisco: A separate lawsuit filed by religious groups and labor organizations is pending, creating the possibility of a third ruling from a different circuit.
This three-way split across federal circuits significantly increases the likelihood that the issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court. In the interim, the practical effect of the Boston ruling is to vacate the fee nationwide — but the administration is expected to seek an emergency stay pending appeal, which could temporarily reimpose the fee.
As of the date of this article, a federal judge has paused the decision to block the fee while the administration seeks that emergency stay. The fee is still in effect at the time of publication.
What This Means for Employers and Workers
For employers who had been paying the $100,000 fee or who had paused H-1B sponsorships, the legal situation remains in flux. The practical recommendation from immigration attorneys is consistent: do not act as if the fee is definitively gone until the appeal and stay question is resolved.
For H-1B workers and prospective petitioners:
If your petition was already filed with the fee paid: Your case should proceed normally regardless of the ruling's outcome.
If your employer paused sponsorship due to the fee: The pause may be lifted, but confirm with your employer's legal counsel before taking action.
If you are outside the U.S. and subject to consular processing: This is the category most directly affected. Watch for updates as the appeal proceeds.
The fee is scheduled to expire in September 2026 regardless of court outcomes — meaning even if the administration wins the appeal, the policy has a built-in end date.
The Broader Pattern: Courts Checking Executive Immigration Power
The H-1B fee ruling is the third major federal court rebuke of Trump administration immigration policy within a two-week period in June 2026. On June 5, a Rhode Island judge struck down USCIS processing holds on 39 countries. On June 8, the Boston court vacated the H-1B fee. Each ruling turns on the same legal framework: the administration claimed executive authority it does not possess, and failed to follow required procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The accumulation of adverse rulings has created an unusual dynamic in which large categories of immigration enforcement are being administered under legal uncertainty — policies that are in force but under active judicial challenge, creating planning difficulty for employers, applicants, and legal practitioners alike.
Key Facts
Ruling date | June 8, 2026 |
Court | U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts |
Judge | Judge Leo T. Sorokin |
Case | State of California, et al. v. Mullin, et al. |
Fee amount | $100,000 per new H-1B petition (consular processing cases) |
Previous cost | $2,000–$5,000 per petition |
Current status | Fee paused pending administration's emergency stay request |
Appeal expected | Yes — administration has signaled intent to appeal |
Fee expiration | September 2026 (regardless of court outcome) |
The Immigrants will continue to monitor this case. For the latest status, check uscis.gov or consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions based on this ruling.
About The Immigrants
The Immigrants is an independent publication covering the policies, systems, and decisions that shape the lives of people who move across borders.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal situation described is actively evolving. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions based on any court ruling described here.
Sources: U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (State of California et al. v. Mullin et al.), NPR, CNBC, CUPA-HR, Clark Hill Law, Visaverge, Badmus Law, Thomas M. Lee Law.
Komentarze