On June 8, 2026, federal judge Leo Sorokin from Boston issued a 42-page ruling: a $100,000 fee for new H-1B work visa petitions is illegal. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of attorneys general from 20 states led by California.
How it worked — and why the court said no
On September 19, 2025, Trump signed a presidential proclamation "Restriction on Entry of Certain Non-Immigrant Workers." Starting September 21, employers hiring H-1B specialists from abroad were required to pay $100,000 — on top of standard USCIS fees, which previously amounted to several thousand dollars. The payment was made through the federal pay.gov portal directly to the Treasury Department.
The administration insisted: this is a lawful financial sanction within immigration law that the president is entitled to implement independently. Judge Sorokin rejected this argument.
"The payment is not a penalty... because it is not a penalty for an unlawful act or inaction. Hiring workers under the H-1B program is entirely lawful"
— from Judge Leo Sorokin's ruling
If the payment does not penalize a violation but merely collects money from a legal activity — it is a tax. The U.S. Constitution vests the power to levy taxes exclusively in Congress.
What specifically was invalidated
Sorokin did not merely annul the fee itself but also the entire infrastructure for its implementation: internal departmental memoranda, instructional documents, FAQs, and fee schedules that DHS used to administer the payment.
Who was affected and the scope
H-1B is the primary tool for hiring foreign specialists in technology companies, universities, and hospitals. Those directly affected by the fee include Amazon, Microsoft, and other tech giants, which in response began developing workaround schemes — for example, prioritizing hiring holders of other, cheaper visas.
According to the lawsuit, California Attorney General Rob Bonta noted that the fee particularly harms the public sector: hospitals, schools, research institutions — those who cannot pass the $100,000 cost onto their product price.
- Hospitals and medical facilities — shortage of doctors and nurses in rural areas;
- Universities — researchers and academic staff with foreign degrees;
- Religious and nonprofit organizations — missionary orders that rely on H-1B for language speakers.
Parallel precedent and appeal
This ruling contradicts a December 2025 conclusion: judge Beryl Howell in Washington then upheld the fee in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, citing broad presidential immigration powers. Two courts — two opposite conclusions — virtually guarantee the matter will be reviewed in an appellate court.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers stated that the administration will appeal the decision and is "confident it will be overturned." DHS is headed by Secretary Marqueene Mullin — the department is named as the defendant in the lawsuit.
If the appellate court upholds Sorokin's ruling — Trump will lose one of the key levers that allowed him to restrict H-1B without Congress's involvement. The question is whether the administration will risk asking the Supreme Court to revisit the boundary between a "regulatory fee" and a "tax" — especially when the tech industry has already publicly adapted to the new reality.
