Federal Court Nullifies $100,000 Fee for H-1B Visa Petitions
A federal court in Massachusetts has nullified a regulation introduced by the previous administration mandating a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions. Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that the administration exceeded its authority by establishing this fee through a 2025 presidential proclamation. This decision responds to a lawsuit from 20 states, which contended that the fee bypassed necessary rulemaking procedures and exceeded executive powers.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. companies to employ foreign professionals in specialized fields such as technology and healthcare, under temporary employment conditions. Employers typically bear the costs of visa applications. In September 2025, the administration introduced the fee intending to deter visa program misuse and protect domestic workers. However, this measure faced legal opposition from multiple states.
The court's ruling hinged on distinguishing a fee from a tax. Fees are associated with service delivery costs, whereas taxes are government-imposed charges not directly related to services provided. The court determined the $100,000 fee resembled a tax, as it was applied to a legal visa application process without being tied to processing expenses. This aligns with the constitutional principle granting only Congress the power to impose taxes, with no immigration laws cited that empower the president to levy such a fee.
The administration defended the fee citing provisions within the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the court concluded these do not sanction new fees on H-1B petitions for entry regulation purposes. The court refuted claims that the policy was outside judicial review, emphasizing that the issue concerned broader agency policy rather than individual visa decisions.
Federal agencies, including USCIS, had implemented procedures for the fee without sufficient rulemaking, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. This act mandates a public commenting process before adopting new rules, which was not conducted. Since the fee was not consistent with the cost-recovery principles of existing immigration law, its imposition was deemed as overreach.
The judge also noted the failure to consider significant repercussions, such as potential effects on educational institutions and healthcare providers. The ruling leads to the cancellation of the regulatory materials enforcing the fee. Separately, the policy faces challenges from entities such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce but remains under legal review. Overall, the decision highlights the necessity for structured policy-making processes and adherence to legislative boundaries concerning immigration-related fees.