Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100,000 H-1B Fee; Ruling Raises Constitutional Concerns
On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions, finding it an unconstitutional tax that violates the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling blocks a policy that had generated only $8.5 million from 85 payments as of February 15, 2026—far less than claimed by the administration—and that had effectively deterred many small and mid-sized employers from sponsoring skilled workers.
A federal court has halted the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions, a policy that was never about covering costs but about shutting down a legal immigration pathway through executive action. The ruling, issued by Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Massachusetts, held that the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was not a legitimate user fee but a revenue-raising measure that only Congress can impose as a tax. The administration's claim that the fee would generate substantial revenue was contradicted by its own court filings: as of February 15, 2026, USCIS had received only 85 payments totaling $8.5 million, a minuscule fraction of the millions projected.
The fee was imposed via a presidential proclamation dated September 19, 2025, titled 'Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers'—not a generic executive action. The judge's decision did not cite the uniformity clause; instead, it rested squarely on the APA and Congress's exclusive taxing power under Article I of the Constitution. The ruling applies nationwide and effectively repeals the requirement, but the administration is expected to appeal to the First Circuit.
For advocates, this victory is consequential but provisional. The ruling reaffirms that the executive cannot circumvent Congress by imposing punitive taxes on immigrants, but the administration may try to reimpose the fee through a different statutory mechanism, such as higher filing fees tied to actual adjudicatory costs. To consolidate this win, Congress must use the appropriations process to bar any future H-1B fee exceeding the actual cost of processing petitions, and the courts should uphold the non-delegation doctrine to prevent the executive from raising revenue through immigration fees without legislative approval.
The humanitarian alternative
Congress should codify H-1B visa fees at reasonable levels tied to actual program costs, not punitive deterrence, and tighten loopholes that allow outsourcing firms to dominate the program. A better approach would raise the prevailing wage floor for H-1B workers to the median wage in the occupation, ensuring no displacement of domestic workers, while expanding the visa cap to meet documented labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. This would preserve the program as a clear economic tool—not a backdoor restriction—and fund retraining programs for U.S. workers through a modest, transparent fee.
Falsifiable predictions
What this entry claims will happen, and what data would prove it wrong. The Reckoner revisits these against current reality.
- The Trump administration will appeal the decision to the First Circuit within 30 days and seek an emergency stay of the ruling.
- H-1B application volumes will increase by at least 15% in the next lottery cycle following the ruling's implementation.
Grounded in
- Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee is unlawful, US judge rules | Reuters
- Court strike down Trump's H-1B $100,000 fee - The Washington Post
- Immigration Ruling Strikes Down $100,000 H-1B Fee. What's Next?
- Federal Court Vacates $100,000 H-1B Fee | Burr & Forman LLP
- Federal judge rules Trump's $100,000 fee for H-1B visas unlawful
Original source — excerpted
news Federal judge strikes down Trump’s $100K H-1B visa fee, ruling it an unconstitutional tax"NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles! A federal judge on Monday struck down President Donald Trump's $100,000 fee requirement for employers seeking H-1B..."