Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Requirement

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Monday voided President Donald Trump's requirement of a $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas, ruling that the executive branch lacked authority to impose the new policy on a program used by companies to hire highly skilled foreign workers in specialized fields.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama based in Boston, said only Congress has the power to change federal immigration policy to include such a fee, which he viewed as a tax. Lawmakers had not given the executive branch permission to unilaterally make the change.

"The President had no power or delegated authority to impose a tax on H-1B petitions," Sorokin wrote in a 42-page decision striking down the policy.

The case was brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general in December, several months after Trump imposed the $100,000 requirement in an effort to rein in the program, which he said was being overused.

H-1B visas allow foreign professionals to seek work in professions considered specialized. Applicants must hold a bachelor's degree or equivalent. The visa is valid for three years and can be renewed for another three years. Economists have argued the program allows U.S. companies to maintain competitiveness and grow their businesses, creating more jobs domestically.

Sorokin rejected arguments from the administration that the president had the power to implement the requirement because of federal immigration law giving him leeway to change U.S. policy in other ways. Nowhere in those laws, the judge said, did Congress give the president the power to levy taxes in the immigration sphere.

Natalie Baldassarre, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the DOJ "is committed to protecting American workers and fully supports President Trump's America First agenda," and pointed to an earlier ruling in the administration's favor in a separate challenge to the policy.

"We will continue to hold companies accountable when they unlawfully exploit American workers and fail to use the H-1B program as intended," she said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office led the lawsuit, said in a statement that the court had "put an end to this administration's illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible."

"Workers with these visas contribute immensely to our state, and I will keep fighting to stop this administration's unjust and unlawful attacks on our immigrant communities," James said.

The ruling is the latest legal setback for Trump's efforts to overhaul immigration policy through executive action. The H-1B program has long been a flashpoint, with critics arguing it is abused by companies to hire cheaper foreign labor at the expense of American workers. Supporters counter that it fills critical skill gaps and drives innovation and economic growth.

The fee requirement was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to make the program more expensive and restrictive. The policy faced immediate legal challenges from states, tech companies and immigration advocacy groups who argued it exceeded presidential authority and would harm U.S. competitiveness in technology and other specialized fields.

The decision is likely to be appealed by the administration, setting up a potential review by higher courts. In the meantime, the ruling restores the previous fee structure for H-1B petitions, providing relief to companies that rely on the program to hire international talent.

The H-1B visa program is capped at 85,000 visas annually, with 65,000 for general applicants and 20,000 for those with advanced degrees. Demand consistently exceeds supply, leading to a lottery system that has drawn criticism for its randomness.

Tech companies, universities and research institutions have long advocated for expansion of the program, arguing that it is essential for attracting global talent in fields like software engineering, data science and biotechnology. The Trump administration's efforts to raise costs were seen as an attempt to reduce reliance on foreign workers and encourage domestic hiring and training.

The ruling underscores the limits of executive power in immigration policy. While presidents have significant discretion in enforcement and certain administrative matters, major structural changes like imposing new fees typically require congressional approval.

Legal experts say the decision reinforces the separation of powers, with Congress holding primary authority over immigration legislation. The case may set a precedent for future challenges to executive actions in the immigration space.

For companies that use the H-1B program, the ruling provides short-term certainty. Many had already begun adjusting hiring strategies in anticipation of higher costs, but the decision removes that immediate financial burden.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue reacted swiftly. Supporters of stricter immigration controls expressed disappointment, while business and immigrant rights organizations welcomed the decision as a victory for legal immigration pathways and economic competitiveness.

The H-1B debate reflects deeper divisions in U.S. immigration policy. Proponents of reform argue for protecting American workers and reducing exploitation, while opponents emphasize the program's role in innovation and filling specialized labor shortages.

As the case potentially heads to appeals courts, the broader conversation about H-1B reform continues in Congress and the administration. Any legislative changes would require bipartisan support, which has proven elusive in recent years.

The ruling comes as the Trump administration pursues other immigration initiatives through executive action, many of which face similar legal challenges. The courts continue to play a central role in defining the boundaries of presidential power in this area.

For now, the $100,000 fee requirement is voided, restoring the previous fee structure for H-1B petitions. Companies and foreign professionals can proceed with applications under the established rules while the legal process unfolds.

The decision provides a temporary victory for businesses and advocates who argued the fee would harm U.S. innovation and competitiveness. It also serves as a reminder of the checks and balances in the U.S. system, where executive actions must align with congressional authority.

As the 2026 political landscape evolves, immigration policy remains a contentious issue. The H-1B program's future will likely depend on both judicial outcomes and potential legislative action in the coming years.