On June 8, 2026, a federal courtroom in Boston became the unlikely stage for a dramatic reversal in U.S. immigration policy. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued a sweeping 42-page ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications—a move that, for nearly nine months, had chilled the hopes of skilled immigrants and the employers who rely on them. The decision, as reported by CNN and The Kenya Times, declared that Trump’s fee was an unauthorized tax, not a regulatory payment, and that only Congress—not the president—has the constitutional authority to impose such a burden.
"The President had no power or delegated authority to impose a tax on H-1B petitions," Sorokin wrote, as quoted by multiple sources including American Kahani. The fee, announced by Trump on September 19, 2025, had immediately raised the cost of obtaining an H-1B visa from a few thousand dollars to a staggering $100,000. The impact was swift and severe: according to court filings cited by American Kahani, by mid-February only 85 payments had been made under the new rule. The chilling effect was clear—employers, especially smaller firms and research institutions, simply couldn’t afford the new price tag.
The H-1B program, established by Congress in 1990, has long served as the primary legal pathway for American technology companies, hospitals, and universities to recruit specialized talent from abroad. Each year, 65,000 visas are allocated, with an additional 20,000 for workers holding advanced degrees. Applicants must possess at least a bachelor’s degree, and the visa is valid for three years, renewable for another three. As CNN explained, economists and business leaders have often argued that the program allows U.S. companies to stay competitive and grow, creating more jobs at home.
But the Trump administration saw things differently. The fee was designed, officials argued, to curb what they described as rampant exploitation of the H-1B system—whereby companies would allegedly replace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor. By raising the financial bar so high, the administration hoped to push employers to hire more U.S. citizens for high-paying roles. Yet, as The Kenya Times and American Kahani both noted, the fee’s real-world effect was to narrow the pipeline for skilled immigration, particularly for Indian nationals, who make up around 71% of H-1B recipients according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.
The lawsuit that toppled the fee was spearheaded by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general. Their argument was straightforward: the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the exclusive power to levy taxes. Sorokin agreed, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. There, the Court had drawn a key distinction between a tax and a penalty—a distinction Sorokin found highly relevant. "Here, the $100,000 payment requirement for all H-1B petitions does not aim to establish that hiring H-1B workers is illegal. The payment is not a penalty, just as the IRS fee in Sebelius was not, because it is not 'punishment for an unlawful act or omission,'" Sorokin wrote in his ruling.
He further rejected the administration’s claim that the fee was a mere "regulatory payment." In a pointed passage, Sorokin wrote, "Defendants offer no definition for what constitutes 'a regulatory payment,' cite no cases or statutes employing the term, and advance no reasoned argument explaining how this term encompasses something different than a tax or a penalty." In other words, the administration’s justification was, as Sorokin put it, "mere ipse dixit."
Notably, the judge also found that the fee had been imposed without the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act—meaning the public, and especially affected industries, had no chance to weigh in before the policy took effect. As The Kenya Times explained, this procedural misstep added another legal strike against the fee.
Yet, the legal landscape is hardly settled. The Boston ruling stands in stark contrast to a December 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., who had upheld Trump’s authority to impose the fee. Howell’s opinion, as cited by American Kahani, argued that Congress had granted the president broad power to regulate entry into the United States, including for noncitizens. "Congress has decided to delegate broad power to the President to restrict entry of noncitizens '[w]henever the President finds that such entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" Howell wrote. She was careful, however, to note that "the effects of the H-1B program on the American economy or national security, whether positive or negative, are simply not at issue in this case."
This split in the courts all but guarantees further litigation. The Department of Justice is widely expected to appeal Sorokin’s decision, as reported by The Kenya Times and CNN. The ultimate resolution may well come from the circuit courts—or even the Supreme Court.
For now, though, the immediate effect of Sorokin’s ruling is to vacate the $100,000 fee and restore the previous cost structure for new H-1B petitions. For technology companies, hospitals, and universities, this offers at least temporary relief from sharply elevated costs and a dramatic reduction in applications. For Indian professionals and the broader Indian American community, the ruling is especially significant. As American Kahani noted, the fee had "effectively priced out many small and mid-sized employers who relied on the H-1B program to hire Indian engineers, physicians, and researchers," narrowing a pipeline that has been a crucial route to legal immigration for decades.
The timing of the decision is also notable. It comes just days after Sriram Krishnan, the senior White House policy adviser for artificial intelligence and a vocal advocate for skilled immigration, announced his departure from the administration. Krishnan had reportedly spoken directly with President Trump and Vice President Vance about the importance of Indian-born professionals to the U.S. technology sector. The ruling, therefore, lands against a backdrop of broader debates over immigration policy, workforce needs, and the role of executive power in shaping the nation’s legal landscape.
Supporters of the fee, including some labor groups and lawmakers, have long argued that the H-1B program suppresses wages and displaces domestic workers, particularly in the tech sector. But critics saw the $100,000 charge as a blunt instrument—one that threatened to harm the very industries that drive American innovation and growth. As The Kenya Times put it, the ruling "provides immediate relief to employers who faced dramatically higher costs under the policy."
Ultimately, Sorokin’s decision does not alter the underlying statutory limits on H-1B visas, nor does it address separate regulatory changes to wage requirements and program oversight—those remain the subject of ongoing litigation and administrative review. But for now, the ruling stands as a powerful reminder of the constitutional checks on executive authority, and of the enduring debate over how best to balance economic needs, national interests, and the aspirations of those who seek a future in the United States.