Court Strikes Trump’s Illegal $100,000 Fee for New H-1B Visas

Trump has an increasingly hard time winning in court. Blame Trump not the courts.

Another Unconstitutional Trump Action Bites the Dust

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee Proclamation.

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin (District of Massachusetts) issued a Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment to 20 plaintiff states (led by California) and largely denying the Trump administration’s cross-motion in State of California et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et al. (Case 1:25-cv-13829-LTS).

Background

• On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation 10973, citing INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a). It imposed a new $100,000 supplemental payment on employers filing H-1B petitions for nonimmigrant workers.
• The stated goal: Address alleged abuse of the H-1B program, which the Proclamation claimed suppresses American wages, harms U.S. workers (especially in STEM), and undermines economic/national security.
• The fee applied prospectively to new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025 (with some exceptions/waivers possible). Agencies (DHS/USCIS, State Department) quickly implemented it via memos, FAQs, and an updated fee schedule. storage.courtlistener.com

Court’s Ruling

• Plaintiffs Win on Merits: The court allowed the states’ motion for summary judgment.
• Core Reason: The Proclamation and its agency implementation (the “Policy”) violate the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Congress has extensively regulated the H-1B program (including fees, caps, and protections for domestic workers) through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The President cannot unilaterally add a massive new financial barrier via proclamation.

Main Legal Issues

• H-1B Framework: Congress set specific visa caps (65k + 20k for advanced degrees), exemptions for universities/nonprofits/research orgs, statutory fees, and DHS authority to set adjudication fees via notice-and-comment rulemaking to recover costs. Trump’s Executive Order bypassed existing law.
• Presidential Authority Limits: While Section 212(f) gives broad power to suspend entry or impose restrictions when detrimental to U.S. interests, it does not authorize rewriting statutory fee structures or core program rules established by Congress.
• APA Violations: Agency actions implementing the fee were challenged as arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of authority.

Impacts Noted

The fee dramatically raised costs for H-1B petitions (previously ~$960–$7,595 total). It affected employers in plaintiff states, including cap-exempt entities like universities and nonprofits.

Bottom Line

• This is a significant judicial check on executive overreach in immigration policy. The court upheld Congress’s detailed statutory scheme for skilled worker visas against a unilateral presidential surcharge aimed at deterring H-1B use.
• The ruling blocks (or declares unlawful) the $100k fee requirement and related agency policies.
• Expect appeals, possible stays, and ongoing debate over H-1B reform—especially given criticisms of program abuse vs. needs in tech/STEM.

The full 42-page opinion is available on Court Listener. This is a clean win for the states challenging the policy.

If challenged, I believe the text of the existing law is clear. That implies Trump would lose in the Supreme Court.

I reserve the right to change my opinion based on oral arguments in an appeal. But right now, I certainly don’t expect to.

Court Listener Excerpts

The Constitution provides Congress with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4. Pursuant to this constitutional authority, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), which “established a comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization and set the terms and conditions of admission to the country and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in the country.”

Plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers claim arises from their allegations that the Policy “usurps Congress’s exclusive and plenary constitutional authority to set immigration policy and to raise revenue” and “exceeds the carefully and explicitly limited fee-setting authority delegated to the executive branch by Congress.”

Defendants raise various objections to ultra vires review, but their arguments are unavailing.

Plaintiffs allege both that the Policy exceeds the scope of the President’s authority under the INA, and that it encroaches upon Congress’s exclusive power to tax under the Constitution.

Plaintiffs’ claim does not require the Court to evaluate whether the President abused the discretion granted to him by the INA. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the President lacked the power to impose the additional $100,000 payment requirement to H-1B applications, alleging (among other things) that the payment obligation intrudes upon Congress’s taxing power. Such a claim is plainly subject to judicial review. While Defendants urge that the President’s policy decisions involving immigration and national security are squarely within the executive’s discretion and immune from judicial intervention, Doc. No. 93 at 28-29, this line of argument misconstrues the nature of the issues here. The ultra vires claim in this case does not call upon the Court to question the President’s exercise of his policy-making discretion. Rather, this case asks the Court to evaluate whether the President and Defendants had the requisite authority to issue and implement the Proclamation.

Having resolved the reviewability of Plaintiffs’ ultra vires challenge, the Court evaluates the merits of the claim. Plaintiffs contend that the Policy violates separation-of-powers principles because it “usurps both” Congress’s constitutional “powers to regulate the admission of noncitizens . . . and to levy taxes.” Doc. No. 87 at 20.

Defendants claim that the $100,000 payment requirement is “a regulatory payment,” which is “not the same as a tax.” Doc. No. 93 at 35. This is mere ipse dixit. 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 any event, the manner in which a particular payment is labeled “does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power,” because what matters is the “substance and application” of the payment, not its “designation.”

Finally, Defendants’ miscellaneous arguments that the President has the authority to impose the $100,000 tax based on his “immigration and commerce powers” are nowhere to be found in the authorities they cite.

Relief

Defendants urge that any relief granted must be limited to Plaintiffs, arguing that the APA “makes no mention of vacatur” and that “remedies under the APA should reflect historical equitable remedies with the same limits.” Doc. No. 93 at 43. Both arguments are misguided. The APA’s text, which allows the court to “set aside” unlawful agency action, has long been thought to include vacatur.

Conclusion & Orders

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 86, and DENIES Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 92. At the parties’ request, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, id., is OTHERWISE DENIED. The Policy implementing the Proclamation is declared unlawful and is VACATED in its entirety. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, with each side bearing its own fees and costs

The Court Listener doc is 42 pages. I condensed it to the above key rationale.

What Does Not Matter

• Your views on H-1B Visas
• My views on H-1B Visas
• Trump’s views on H-1B Visas

This case will undoubtedly lead to more charges of a “activist court”. Instead, it’s a case of the court smacking the face of an “activist Trump”.

We can debate what should or should not be reasonable H-1B. But Constitutionally, that is up to Congress, not a king sitting on a throne deciding he is boss.

The court made the only sensible ruling.

Judge Tosses Trump’s Lawsuit Against the BBC

Trump lost two Tariff cases (one Supreme Court settled) and may be heading for a third.

Trump is headed for a massive slap in the face on his preposterous Birthright Citizenship Executive Order.

Again, the problem is an activist Trump, not an activist Court.

Related Posts

February 20, 2026: Supreme Court Strikes Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs In 6-3 Vote (I Told You So)

Forgive me for bragging, but I got every justice correct.

March 5, 2026: Trade Court Orders Trump to Refund $130 Billion in Tariffs

Who could have predicted this?

May 7, 2026: Trade Court Sends Trump’s Section 122 Tariffs Down the Drain

Gee, I get another Tariff “I Told You So.”

April 1, 2026: Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Arguments Suggest 7-2 Minimum Against Trump

Justice Kavanaugh hammers Trump’s lawyer, setting the tone.

With Kavanaugh on board, this will go no less than 7-2 against Trump.