Court strikes H-1B fee; conflicting rulings leave employers guessing

A Massachusetts federal judge vacated the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 H-1B application fee last week, ruling the president lacked authority to impose it and that the payment functions as a tax only Congress can levy.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin sided with a coalition of 20 states that sued to block the September 2025 proclamation, which added a $100,000 supplemental payment on top of existing H-1B fees that already ranged from roughly $960 to $7,595. The states argued the fee was crippling their ability to fill roles in education, healthcare and research, according to a brief from law firm Fisher Phillips.

The briefing indicates that the court found the payment is neither a penalty nor a legitimate regulatory fee tied to the cost of administering a service. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s 2012 Affordable Care Act ruling, Sorokin concluded it is a tax and that taxing power belongs exclusively to Congress. The judge also found the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rolling out the policy without public notice-and-comment, and that it failed to account for the impact on healthcare and education sectors that heavily depend on H-1B workers.

Why HR leaders should stay cautious

A split between courts makes Supreme Court review increasingly likely. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. previously reached the opposite conclusion in a challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, ruling the administration was within its authority to impose the fee, according to Fisher Phillips.

That case is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit, which heard arguments in March and could rule at any time. The administration is also expected to appeal the Massachusetts ruling and could seek to reinstate the fee while litigation continues.

Legal experts advise treating this ruling as an opening, not a resolution. “Because the legal landscape could look very different as soon as this week or six months from now, employers should act cautiously as a result of Monday’s ruling,” wrote Shanon R. Stevenson, a partner at Fisher Phillips.