A federal judge ruled Monday that a $100,000 [1] fee for new H-1B visas imposed by the Trump administration is unlawful.
The decision prevents the administration from implementing a massive cost increase for employers hiring high-skilled foreign workers. This ruling halts a policy that critics argued would stifle innovation and limit the ability of U.S. companies to recruit global talent.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued the ruling in Boston on June 8, 2026 [3]. The case was brought by 20 [2] Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the legality of the fee. Sorokin found that the charge functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory fee, a distinction that carries significant legal weight under the U.S. Constitution.
According to the court, the administration bypassed the necessary legislative process to implement the charge. "It is a tax," Sorokin said [4]. He said that "the fee is an unlawful tax that was imposed without congressional approval" [5].
Under the Constitution, the power to impose taxes rests with Congress. The judge ruled that the executive branch cannot unilaterally create a financial burden of this magnitude without an act of legislation. Because the administration failed to secure this approval, the fee was deemed a violation of constitutional requirements.
The ruling serves as a check on executive authority regarding the financial administration of visa programs. The 20 [2] attorneys general argued that such a high cost would disrupt local economies, and punish businesses that rely on specialized foreign labor to maintain competitiveness.
“"It is a tax."”
This ruling reinforces the legal boundary between administrative fees and taxes, affirming that the executive branch cannot generate significant revenue through visa costs without explicit congressional authorization. By blocking the $100,000 fee, the court prevents a potential shock to the tech and healthcare sectors, where H-1B visas are most prevalent, ensuring that the cost of hiring foreign specialists remains tied to legislative standards rather than presidential directives.
