Judge blocks – A federal judge in Boston struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, ruling the executive branch exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision reverses an earlier ruling that had kept the higher fee in
On Monday, a federal judge in Boston struck down a Trump administration rule that would have required employers to pay $100,000 for new H-1B visas—an amount officials had pitched as a way to deter foreign workers from taking American jobs.
U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin sided with 20 states, concluding that the executive branch went too far. In his ruling. Sorokin found that the policy imposed a tax on H-1B petitions without the “requisite delegation by Congress. ” and said it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. the law that governs how federal agencies create and issue regulations.
The fee change was announced as a major shift in the H-1B program, which is designed for high-skilled work. The administration said the goal was to prevent foreign workers from displacing U.S. workers.
But the states’ argument centered on how the H-1B program is actually used—and how hard it already is to fill certain jobs. They pointed out that the use of the H-1B system to fill vacancies for much-needed doctors and teachers was difficult even before the higher fee was introduced.
Deep-pocketed technology companies are the biggest users of H-1B visas, and nearly three-quarters of approvals go to workers from India, according to the case record summarized in the reporting.
The lawsuits also grew out of the chaos the fee announcement triggered. Most H-1B visa applications require several thousand dollars before any increase. but the much-higher fee set off a wave of panic among confused employers. students and workers in the United States and abroad. That reaction helped spur multiple lawsuits, including one filed in Boston.
The case did not unfold in a vacuum. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued in federal court in Washington. D.C. and has appealed a denial of summary judgment against the fee hike. That appeal left the higher fee in effect, at least until September 2026, when it is scheduled to expire. Monday’s ruling was also a summary judgment—this time, in the opposite direction.
A separate lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by religious groups and labor organizations. With cases pending in three appellate court circuits, the possibility of divided rulings across the country has emerged as the litigation continues.
In its complaint, the states argued the justification for the fee did not hold up. They said the proclamation offered “various overtures to domestic economic policy goals” to support the unprecedented $100. 000 fee. but “the Proclamation gives no indication that the President gave any consideration to how the fee would affect Plaintiff States and their ability to provide their residents access to education. healthcare. and other basic human needs.”.
They also said the policy would impede their ability to hire educators for primary and secondary schools, staff public colleges and universities, stymie academic research, and contribute to a decline in medical workers.
The Department of Homeland Security pushed back after the ruling. In a statement. the agency said it disagrees with what it called “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.” The department said that under President Trump and Secretary Mullin. the immigration system is being reformed “to serve American citizens. American workers. and American families. ” and to preserve the country’s national identity—rather than “to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs. commit crimes. burden our welfare system. and erode our cultural and social fabric.”.
The fight over the H-1B fee now moves deeper into the courts, with Monday’s decision removing the $100,000 charge at least as the case proceeds—and with multiple competing lawsuits still poised to determine how far the reversal reaches.
H-1B visa fee Leo Sorokin Administrative Procedure Act immigration reform Trump administration 20 states lawsuit Boston federal court