A United States federal court has invalidated a policy from the Trump administration requiring a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. The decision, handed down on Monday by Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, found the fee to be an unauthorized tax, violating both the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling came in the case of State of California vs. Mark Wayne Mullin et al.
The $100,000 fee, part of Proclamation 10973 signed by President Donald Trump on September 19, 2025, was intended to deter misuse of the H-1B program and safeguard American jobs. However, critics warned that the steep fee would disproportionately affect smaller businesses, universities, hospitals, and startups that depend on skilled foreign workers but lack the resources of large tech companies.
Opposition to the fee was strong, with twenty states challenging the policy in court. They argued that the fee would hinder their ability to recruit foreign talent in crucial sectors such as technology, healthcare, and education. Before the introduction of the proclamation, H-1B petition fees ranged from $960 to $7,595, making the $100,000 requirement a significant increase.
The central question before the court was whether the $100,000 charge constituted a valid immigration restriction or an unauthorized tax. Judge Sorokin concluded that it was indeed a tax, noting that the hiring of H-1B workers is a lawful activity, and the fee was not a penalty for any illegal conduct. “Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,” the court stated.
The court also examined whether Congress had ever granted the President the authority to impose taxes under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It found that while the Act allows the President to implement restrictions and regulations on the entry of non-citizens, it does not extend to the power to levy taxes. “These sections allow the President to impose ‘restrictions,’ ‘rules,’ ‘regulations,’ ‘orders,’ ‘limitations,’ and ‘exceptions’ to the entry of noncitizens to the United States. Like the powers delineated in the IEEPA, none of these terms, by their ordinary meaning, include the power to tax,” the court clarified.
More Read
Furthermore, the court determined that the agencies enforcing the proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing the policy without following the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. The policy was also deemed arbitrary and capricious, as the government failed to properly consider alternatives and the impact on cap-exempt employers.
As a result, the court set aside the policy entirely, offering full relief to the states involved in the lawsuit, though it chose not to issue a separate permanent injunction.
