A federal judge in the United States has struck down a controversial policy introduced by President Donald Trump’s administration that required employers to pay a $100,000 fee when filing new H-1B visa petitions for foreign workers.
The ruling, delivered on Monday by US District Judge Leo Sorokin, represents a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to tighten restrictions on foreign workers entering the United States through one of the country’s most widely used employment visa programmes.
In a decision issued by the US District Court in Massachusetts, Judge Sorokin ruled that the fee was unlawful, describing it as an unauthorised tax that exceeded the powers granted to the executive branch by Congress.
According to the court, the administration violated both the US Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act by imposing the charge without proper legislative authority.
Sorokin agreed with arguments presented by the plaintiffs challenging the policy, stating that the nature and purpose of the payment clearly demonstrated that it functioned as a tax rather than a legitimate administrative fee.
“The substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax,” the judge stated in his ruling.
He further noted that Congress had never authorised the executive branch to impose such a financial burden on employers seeking to hire foreign workers through the H-1B programme.
The decision effectively prevents federal authorities from enforcing the policy and requiring employers to pay the $100,000 charge when submitting new H-1B visa applications.
The H-1B visa programme has long served as a critical pathway for US companies, particularly in the technology sector, to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals. Established in 1990, the programme allows American employers to hire non-immigrant workers in specialised occupations that often require advanced education, technical expertise, or professional qualifications.
Under existing regulations, successful applicants can work in the United States for up to six years, making the programme especially attractive to industries facing shortages of skilled labour.
Major technology companies, engineering firms, healthcare providers, and research institutions have relied heavily on the programme to fill positions that are difficult to staff with domestic workers.
The now-blocked fee was introduced as part of a broader package of immigration restrictions announced by the Trump administration in September. The measures were designed to reduce what the administration described as abuse of the H-1B visa system and to encourage greater employment opportunities for American workers.
At the time, the White House argued that some employers were using the programme to replace qualified American workers with lower-cost foreign employees.
Administration officials cited complaints from US information technology professionals who claimed they had been forced to train foreign workers who later assumed their positions.
According to the White House, some workers were allegedly required to sign non-disclosure agreements preventing them from discussing the circumstances surrounding their job losses.
The administration maintained that such practices undermined the original purpose of the H-1B programme, which was intended to address genuine shortages of highly skilled labour rather than facilitate workforce replacement.
In defending the restrictions, the White House stated that evidence suggested the programme was not always being used to recruit specialised talent unavailable within the United States.
Officials further argued that misuse of the visa system posed broader economic and national security concerns.
The administration claimed that certain outsourcing firms heavily dependent on H-1B workers had been investigated by law enforcement agencies for alleged involvement in visa fraud, money laundering conspiracies, racketeering offences, and other illegal activities.
According to the White House, these concerns justified stronger oversight and tighter regulations on companies seeking to hire foreign workers through the programme.
The administration also linked the issue to long-term competitiveness in science and technology fields.
Officials argued that excessive reliance on foreign workers could discourage American students from pursuing careers in computer science, engineering, and related disciplines.
The White House cited a 2017 study which suggested that wages for American computer scientists could have been between 2.6 percent and 5.1 percent higher if fewer foreign workers had entered the sector.
The same study reportedly estimated that employment opportunities for American computer science professionals could have increased by between 6.1 percent and 10.8 percent in the absence of large-scale recruitment of foreign workers.
Despite these arguments, opponents of the policy contended that the $100,000 charge was excessive and lacked any legal basis.
Business groups, immigration advocates, and industry stakeholders argued that the fee would have severely disrupted recruitment efforts, particularly for companies seeking highly specialised talent in competitive sectors.
Critics also maintained that the measure would have imposed significant financial burdens on employers while reducing the ability of American businesses to compete globally.
Judge Sorokin’s ruling now removes one of the most controversial elements of the administration’s immigration agenda and reaffirms limits on executive authority in matters involving taxation and regulatory fees.
The judgment is expected to be welcomed by major employers and technology firms that depend on access to international talent through the H-1B programme.
While the Trump administration may choose to appeal the decision, the ruling represents a major legal victory for opponents of the policy and ensures that employers will not be required to pay the proposed $100,000 fee when filing new H-1B visa petitions.
The case also highlights the continuing legal and political battles surrounding immigration policy in the United States, particularly as debates over foreign labour, economic competitiveness, and border security remain central issues in national discourse.
