A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, ruling that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated federal rules governing how regulations are issued. The decision directly contradicts an earlier court ruling that upheld the fee hike, says AP.
US District Court Judge Leo Sorokin sided with 20 states challenging the policy, concluding that it effectively imposed a tax on H-1B petitions without congressional authorisation, in breach of the Administrative Procedure Act.
“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote.
The fee increase, announced by the Trump administration, was intended to reduce the number of foreign workers taking American jobs. H-1B visas are designed for high-skilled positions where US workers are scarce, and technology companies account for nearly three-quarters of approvals, mostly for Indian nationals.
Critics argued that the higher fee further complicated efforts to fill positions for essential workers such as doctors, teachers, and academic researchers.
Before the hike, most H-1B applications cost several thousand dollars. The announcement of the $100,000 fee triggered confusion among employers, students, and foreign workers and prompted multiple lawsuits, including the Boston case.
The US Chamber of Commerce separately sued in federal court in Washington, DC, challenging the fee, and the higher charge remained in effect until its scheduled expiration in September 2026.
Meanwhile, a third lawsuit was filed in San Francisco by religious groups and labour organisations, raising the prospect of conflicting appellate rulings.
In the Boston litigation, the states argued that the policy hindered their ability to recruit educators for primary and secondary schools and to staff public colleges and universities. They also warned it would stifle academic research and worsen shortages of medical professionals.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling. “Today’s victory protects the integrity of the H-1B visa program as a tool to address severe labour shortages in vital industries like education, healthcare, and medical research,” Campbell said.
“In Massachusetts, this win will ensure we can fill critical vacancies and hire world-class faculty and researchers at colleges and universities across the Commonwealth.”
The decision was welcomed by the medical community. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, described it as “a victory for patients.”
He noted that physician shortages and increasing barriers to care across the country make it essential to attract highly skilled professionals. “International medical graduates play a vital role in caring for patients, particularly in underserved and rural areas,” he said.
The Department of Homeland Security expressed strong opposition. A statement described the ruling as “blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”
It defended the fee, saying that the Trump administration aimed to “serve American citizens, American workers, and American families” while controlling immigration to protect national identity, welfare systems, and social cohesion.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was cited in the statement. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers indicated that the administration intends to appeal the decision.
She said the government is “confident this order will be reversed on appeal.” H-1B visas remain a key mechanism for filling high-skilled vacancies in the United States.
Deep-pocketed technology firms, hospitals, universities, and research institutions rely on these visas to recruit foreign talent for positions that are often difficult to fill domestically.
The Boston ruling temporarily nullifies the fee increase, offering relief to employers and foreign applicants navigating an already complex system.
Legal experts warn that the overlapping lawsuits in multiple circuits could produce conflicting outcomes, potentially leaving the higher fee in effect in some regions until the appeals process is concluded.
Meanwhile, employers and prospective visa holders face uncertainty as courts weigh the balance of executive authority, congressional intent, and the impact on the US labour market.
Sorokin’s ruling underscores the limits of executive power in immigration policy and highlights ongoing tensions between the
Trump administration’s efforts to tighten controls and states’ interests in maintaining access to skilled labour. The case illustrates the intersection of immigration, labour shortages, and judicial oversight at a time when the US faces critical staffing gaps in education, healthcare, and research sectors.
