A U.S. District Court ruling issued today declared the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee for certain H-1B visas unlawful and vacated it immediately.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued the decision in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general in December 2025.
President Trump imposed the fee through a presidential proclamation issued September 19, 2025, with the surcharge taking effect September 21 for new H-1B petitions covering certain highly skilled foreign workers applying from outside the United States.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell co-led the coalition of plaintiff states, which argued the fee would cause staffing shortages in public universities, state-funded medical systems, and K–12 school districts.
“Today’s victory protects the integrity of the H-1B visa program as a tool to address severe labor shortages in vital industries like education, healthcare, and medical research,” AG Campbell said in an emailed press release. “In Massachusetts, this win will ensure we can fill critical vacancies and hire world-class faculty and researchers at colleges and universities across the Commonwealth.”
Until the ruling is appealed, U.S. employers filing new covered H-1B petitions can proceed without the previously imposed fee.
Why was the fee ruled illegal?
Judge Sorokin found that the fee constituted an unlawful financial penalty rather than a legitimate regulatory fee, and concluded that only Congress has the authority to impose such charges under federal law. He further held that the administration’s rationale — that the fee was necessary to protect domestic labor — violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), bypassed standard rulemaking processes, and amounted to an unconstitutional tax.
“Judge Sorokin saw this for what it was—an illegal tax,” Charles Kuck of Kuck Baxter said. “There is no other logical conclusion. This tax is gone, and I believe for good.”
The ruling also addresses the broader economic and institutional disruptions the fee threatened, including impacts on hospitals, university research programs, and small businesses’ ability to hire skilled foreign workers.
This was not the first legal challenge to the fee. Earlier suits were filed by a coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, and religious organizations in California, and separately by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities — the latter case, decided in favor of the administration by a D.C. district court, is currently under appeal.
“This ruling reaffirms that immigration laws cannot be rewritten by presidential proclamation alone. The rule of law has prevailed, and that is good news for employers, workers, innovation, and the U.S. economy,” Tahmina Watson of Watson Immigration Law said.
U.S. attorney Greg Siskind of Visa Law, who is part of the legal team that filed the first lawsuit filed against the fee, said in an emailed statement to EB5investors.com: “This ruling would affect the other two suits because the judge is vacating the entire Proclamation as opposed to just ruling for the plaintiffs. But it’s not rare for an appeals court to stay a decision on a controversial matter until it has done its own review. As for our suit, we will be filing a notice with the judge regarding the decision, and we presume he will be very interested in what Judge Sorokin’s view is of the question of whether this is a tax or not.”
Government may appeal the ruling
Technology companies and immigration advocacy groups have welcomed today’s decision.
“For months, employers and highly skilled foreign talent have faced significant uncertainty because of a policy that imposed extraordinary costs without congressional authorization,” Watson said. “We have seen this firsthand in our H-1B cap-subject cases, as well as among workers who have been laid off while on H-1B status and are already navigating an especially challenging immigration landscape.”
Legal analysts and early media reports indicate that the Department of Justice may seek an emergency stay or appeal Judge Sorokin’s ruling, in part to reconcile conflicting outcomes across different federal courts.
“I am not sure it will be appealed that fast. The tax ends in three months anyway,” Kuck concluded.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher, its employees. or its affiliates. The information found on this website is intended to be general information; it is not legal or financial advice. Specific legal or financial advice can only be given by a licensed professional with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of your particular situation. You should seek consultation with legal, immigration, and financial experts prior to participating in the EB-5 program Posting a question on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. All questions you post will be available to the public; do not include confidential information in your question.
