A federal judge in Massachusetts has vacated the Trump Administration’s $100,000 supplemental fee requirement imposed on employers sponsoring H-1B visa workers.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued the ruling on June 8, 2026, finding that the surcharge exceeded executive authority and constituted an unlawful tax levied without Congressional approval.
The court held that the $100,000 charge was not a standard immigration filing fee but rather a tax, a distinction carrying significant constitutional weight.
In the ruling, the court stated that “the $100,000 payment requirement amounts to a tax, not a penalty,” meaning only Congress, not the President, holds the authority to impose it.
The case was brought by twenty states challenging the government’s attempt to require employers to pay the fee in connection with certain new H-1B petitions.
The government had argued that the President held broad authority under INA Section 212(f) and Section 215(a) to restrict the entry of foreign nationals, but the court rejected that position entirely.
The judgment vacates all guidance tied to a presidential proclamation dated September 19, 2025, including H-1B FAQ documents published by USCIS and the Department of State, a related USCIS memorandum, and the pay.gov website established to collect the fee.
This means that neither USCIS nor any other federal agency may charge the $100,000 fee in connection with the adjudication of an H-1B petition or the admission of an H-1B beneficiary into the United States.
The court also rejected the government’s request to limit relief only to the twenty plaintiff states, explaining that APA vacatur “operates upon the agency action itself,” making the ruling a broader policy nullification.
Employers who have already paid the $100,000 fee may be entitled to a refund, though no official guidance on the refund process has yet been made available.
Judge Sorokin declined to issue a permanent injunction, instead relying on the government to comply voluntarily with his order vacating all actions implementing the fee requirement.
An appeal from the U.S. government is widely expected, particularly given that a separate district court judge has issued a contradictory ruling upholding the $100,000 fee, creating a direct legal conflict between federal courts.
If the Court of Appeals grants a stay of the judgment pending appeal, the $100,000 fee could continue to be imposed on employers during that period, adding significant uncertainty for businesses relying on H-1B sponsorship.
Given the clear split between federal districts on the validity of the fee, legal observers consider it highly likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately take up the matter, with no certainty about how it would rule.