A federal judge has blocked a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications imposed by the Trump administration in September 2025. US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts sided with California and 19 other states that sued to block the fee.
Judge's Ruling on the Fee
An appointee of former President Obama, Sorokin agreed with the group of Democratic-led states that the administration exceeded its authority and that the fee usurped Congress's power to set immigration policy and taxes. Sorokin stated that Trump lacked the authority to impose the hefty fee on businesses without approval by Congress.
"Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called," wrote Sorokin. He added, "The payment is not a penalty, just as the IRS fee in Sebelius was not."
Final Conclusion and Orders
The final order reads: "For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 86, and DENIES Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 92. At the parties' request, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor. Defendants' motion to dismiss, id., is OTHERWISE DENIED. The Policy implementing the Proclamation is declared unlawful and is VACATED in its entirety. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, with each side bearing its own fees and costs."
Details of the $100,000 Fee
In September 2025, Trump signed a proclamation adding a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa applications. This fee was added on top of existing application costs that already run to several thousand dollars. Administration officials framed it as an incentive for companies to hire Americans instead of importing foreign workers.
Impact on Plaintiffs
The Proclamation and the corresponding Policy significantly increased the cost of H-1B petitions, which prior to the Proclamation totaled between $960 and $7,595 in regulatory and statutory fees. Plaintiffs alleged that they stood to suffer various harms from the new payment requirement:
- First, plaintiffs alleged that the Policy would impede their ability to hire educators for primary and secondary schools, exacerbating existing teacher shortages.
- Second, plaintiffs asserted that the Policy would negatively impact their ability to staff public colleges and universities and stymie critical academic research.
- Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the Policy would lead to a decline in H-1B medical workers, worsening staffing shortages in medical facilities and diminishing access to healthcare.
Plaintiffs contended that the Proclamation's impact on healthcare professionals "will cause cascading harm throughout the Plaintiff States" by impairing public healthcare providers' ability to provide adequate services to residents and by heightening costs to state insurance programs.
About the Author
The TOI Tech Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to delivering the latest and most relevant news from the world of technology to readers of The Times of India. TOI Tech Desk's news coverage spans a wide spectrum across gadget launches, gadget reviews, trends, in-depth analysis, exclusive reports, and breaking stories that impact technology and the digital universe. Be it how-tos or the latest happenings in AI, cybersecurity, personal gadgets, platforms like WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and more; TOI Tech Desk brings the news with accuracy and authenticity.
