Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100,000 Fee On New H-1B Visas
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston struck down President Trump's $100,000 surcharge on new H-1B visa petitions on Monday, June 8, 2026, ruling the payment an unlawful tax that lacked congressional authorization.[1]
Sorokin's 42-page opinion said the surcharge "imposes a tax on H-1B petitions," found the administration exceeded its authority, and set the policy aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.[2] The judge overturned agency memoranda, guidance, website instructions, FAQs and fee schedules used to implement the payment, and the suit was brought by a coalition of 20 states led by California.[3]
On September 19, 2025, Trump issued a proclamation requiring the $100,000 payment on new H-1B petitions, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services then issued implementing guidance and updated fee schedules.[4] Before the surcharge, employers typically paid roughly $1,700 to $4,500 in filing fees, and plaintiffs said the levy would impede hiring of teachers, public college staff and medical workers.[5]
The Boston ruling conflicts with an earlier decision in Washington, D.C., that left the fee in effect and with a separate challenge pending in San Francisco, creating the prospect of splits across appeals courts.[5] The Department of Homeland Security called the decision "blatant judicial activism," while Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and the American Medical Association hailed it as a victory for filling vacancies in education, research and patient care.[2]
The mainstream summary does not mention the significant implications of the $100,000 surcharge on the healthcare sector, where a survey indicated that 64% of hospitals either paused or limited recruitment due to the fee, with over 70% anticipating negative impacts on patient care. This data underscores the ruling's importance beyond legal technicalities, highlighting its potential to affect healthcare delivery and workforce shortages in critical areas. Furthermore, while the summary notes the conflicting court decisions regarding the fee, it overlooks the broader context of immigration policy and labor market effects, such as how H-1B immigration has historically influenced wages and employment for native workers in STEM fields, as detailed in a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This context is crucial for understanding the ongoing debates surrounding high-skilled immigration and its economic ramifications.[6][7]
Show source details & analysis (8 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
The H-1B program has a statutory annual cap of 65,000 regular visas plus an additional 20,000 for beneficiaries with U.S. advanced degrees.
H-1B Cap Season — USCIS
Prior to the $100,000 surcharge, standard H-1B petition filing fees typically ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 depending on employer size.
Changes to H-1B Visa: What You Need to Know — American Immigration Council
A survey of more than 1,000 hospitals found that 64% of those using or planning to use the H-1B program paused, deferred, or limited recruitment due to the $100,000 fee, and over 70% anticipated impacts on patient care.
Impact of H-1B Filing Fee on the Health Care Workforce — American Hospital Association
📌 Key Facts
- On Monday, June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued a 42-page decision striking down President Trump's $100,000 surcharge on new H‑1B visa petitions as an unlawful tax that lacked congressional authorization.
- Sorokin's opinion held the surcharge "imposes a tax on H‑1B petitions" and concluded the administration exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, so the policy was set aside in its entirety.
- The lawsuit was brought in the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of 20 states led by California, which argued the fee would impede hiring of teachers, public college and university staff, doctors and other medical workers.
- The court invalidated multiple implementation tools — including agency memoranda, guidance documents, website instructions, FAQs and fee schedules — finding agencies bypassed required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking and failed to justify the change.
- According to an administration filing cited in coverage, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had collected 85 payments of the $100,000 fee — totaling $8.5 million — as of February 15, 2026.
- The Boston decision conflicts with an earlier ruling in Washington, D.C., involving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that left the fee in effect (and has been appealed), while a separate challenge by religious and labor groups is pending in San Francisco, setting up potential splits across circuits.
- The Department of Homeland Security condemned the ruling as "blatant judicial activism," while Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala praised the decision as a victory for filling vacancies in education, research and patient care.
📰 Source Timeline (8)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- The NPR/AP piece confirms that on Monday, June 8, 2026, Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston granted summary judgment for 20 states and struck down the $100,000 H-1B fee as an unlawful tax imposed without congressional delegation.
- Sorokin explicitly held that the Trump administration exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, writing that the policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions "without the requisite delegation by Congress."
- The article clarifies that a separate case in Washington, D.C., brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had previously left the fee in effect at least until its scheduled expiration in September 2026, creating a direct conflict now resolved differently in Boston.
- It notes a third, still‑pending lawsuit in San Francisco filed by religious groups and labor organizations, underscoring the likelihood of divided rulings across three appellate circuits.
- The story adds stakeholder reactions, including statements from Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell calling the decision a victory for filling vacancies in education and research, and from American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala calling it "a victory for patients" amid physician shortages.
- The Department of Homeland Security responded with a statement condemning the decision as "blatant judicial activism" and defending the policy as part of President Trump's immigration reform agenda.
- The PBS NewsHour wrap reiterates that on Monday, June 8, 2026, a federal judge struck down President Trump's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, underscoring the ruling as part of the day's top national stories.
- The segment frames the decision alongside other major news items, reinforcing its perceived significance for immigration and labor policy.
- On Monday, June 8, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston granted summary judgment to 20 states and struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, holding the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Sorokin's opinion explicitly finds that the policy "imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress," framing the surcharge as an unauthorized tax rather than a regulatory fee.
- The article notes this ruling directly contradicts an earlier federal district court decision in Washington, D.C., which had denied the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's bid to invalidate the same fee, creating a clear conflict across districts.
- PBS reports that the Chamber of Commerce case in D.C. has been appealed, that the fee had been expected to remain in effect until its scheduled September 2026 expiration, and that a separate challenge by religious and labor groups is pending in federal court in San Francisco, setting up possible splits across three appellate circuits.
- The story details the 20 plaintiff states' arguments that the fee impedes hiring of primary and secondary school educators, public college and university staff, doctors, and other medical workers, undermining education, research, and health care delivery.
- The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement condemning Sorokin's ruling as "blatant judicial activism" and characterizing Trump administration immigration reforms as serving American citizens and workers, while accusing immigrants of taking jobs, committing crimes, and burdening welfare systems.
- The Fox article confirms that Judge Leo Sorokin issued his 42-page decision on Monday, June 8, 2026, in Massachusetts, explicitly holding that the $100,000 H-1B payment is an unconstitutional tax that only Congress can impose.
- Sorokin’s opinion emphasizes that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents broad power over the entry of noncitizens but does not authorize them to levy taxes, stating that the H-1B payment 'imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress' and that 'taxes are not restrictions.'
- The article details that, prior to Trump’s September 2025 proclamation, employers typically paid between about $2,000 and $5,000 in H-1B filing fees, highlighting the scale of the now-vacated surcharge.
- The ruling also finds that federal agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the payment without notice-and-comment rulemaking and by exceeding their statutory authority, and it vacates the policy in its entirety.
- The piece notes that Sorokin previously issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and identifies him as an Obama appointee, adding that the administration is expected to appeal this new decision.
- Fox News confirms that U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin’s June 8, 2026 ruling expressly characterizes the $100,000 H-1B payment as a tax designed to raise revenue from a lawful program, not a penalty.
- The article notes Sorokin formally invalidated specific implementation tools, including agency memoranda, guidance documents, website instructions, FAQs, and fee schedules establishing the $100,000 requirement.
- Sorokin found the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing notice-and-comment, failing to adequately explain their reasoning, consider alternatives, or justify any emergency or foreign‑affairs exception.
- As of February 15, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had already collected 85 payments of the $100,000 fee, totaling $8.5 million, according to a March administration filing cited in the article.
- The suit was brought by 20 states led by California and filed in the District of Massachusetts, naming Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and several other federal agencies as defendants.
- The article provides a direct quotation from Sorokin’s reasoning that hiring H‑1B workers is "plainly lawful" and that the fee is not a punishment for an unlawful act or omission.
- The piece reiterates Trump’s stated justification that the September 2025 fee was intended to curb perceived replacement of American workers and protect economic and national security.
- On Monday, June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued a 42-page decision ruling that President Trump's $100,000 payment on new H-1B visa petitions is an unlawful tax lacking congressional authorization.
- The case was brought by a coalition of 20 states led by California, which argued the fee would hinder their ability to hire high-skilled workers in schools, public universities and medical facilities.
- Sorokin wrote that the 'substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,' and found there are 'no statutory powers' authorizing the administration to impose it.
- The ruling notes that existing H-1B employer fees typically range from roughly $1,700 to $4,500, and contrasts those with the Trump proclamation’s additional $100,000 payment announced in September 2025 and applied to new applicants living abroad.
- The judge held that the administrative record contains no reasonable explanation for imposing such a heavy tax on the H-1B program and ordered the $100,000 requirement to be set aside in its entirety under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The New York Times piece confirms the June 8, 2026 ruling in Massachusetts federal court that voided the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new skilled-worker (H-1B) visas but does not materially add to the factual record already captured from earlier coverage.
- The Times reiterates that the fee stemmed from a September 2025 Trump executive order and that the court blocked the surcharge from taking effect nationwide.
- The article frames the decision in the context of business and higher-education concerns about labor shortages and costs, but without providing new numerical impacts, legal remedies, or appeal steps beyond what is already known.