Judge Nukes Trump’s $100K Visa Hit

June 9, 2026

A federal judge just wiped out Trump’s $100,000 H‑1B visa fee as an unconstitutional tax, exposing a major tug‑of‑war over who really controls immigration and the power to tax in Washington.

Story Snapshot

A Massachusetts federal judge struck down Trump’s $100,000 H‑1B fee as an unlawful tax that only Congress can impose.^[1]^[2]
The ruling came in a lawsuit by 20 states led by California, and it vacates the policy nationwide under federal administrative law.^[1]^[2]^[5]
The decision directly clashes with a Washington, D.C. federal court that previously upheld the same fee as a lawful use of presidential immigration powers.^[3]^[5]
The fight now centers on a core separation‑of‑powers question: can presidents use immigration rules to raise massive revenue without Congress?^[1]^[2]^[3]^[5]

Judge says $100,000 H‑1B charge is a tax Congress never approved

A federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the Trump administration’s $100,000 charge on new H‑1B visa petitions is not a simple processing fee, but a tax that the Constitution reserves to Congress.^[1]^[2] Judge Leo Sorokin held that “the substance and application” of the payment show it is a tax “regardless of what the payment is called,” and found “no statutory powers” authorizing the administration to impose a $100,000 tax on H‑1B petitions.^[1]^[2] That basic finding cuts to the heart of who controls the federal power to raise money.

The judge sided with a coalition of 20 states, led by California, that sued in December claiming the policy was unlawful and put an extreme financial barrier on employers who use legal high‑skill visas.^[1]^[5] The fee applied on top of the usual H‑1B filing charges, which are already in the low‑thousands of dollars per worker, making the new amount far beyond normal cost recovery.^[4]^[5] The court ordered the $100,000 requirement “set aside in its entirety” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies create and defend their rules.^[1]^[2]

Why the court called it a tax instead of a fee

Judge Sorokin’s opinion walked through why the $100,000 payment looks more like a tax than a user fee or penalty.^[2] The charge was owed on every new H‑1B petition covered by the policy and had to be paid straight to the United States Treasury through the government’s online payment portal, which is how tax‑like revenue is usually collected.^[3]^[5] The judge noted that hiring H‑1B workers is lawful, so the payment was not punishing illegal conduct, and there was no evidence it was tied to the actual cost of processing those visa applications.^[2]^[4]^[5]

Under the Constitution, only Congress can clearly delegate the power to impose taxes, and any such delegation must be unmistakable.^[2] The administration had relied on immigration statutes that let the president “regulate” the entry of noncitizens and place “restrictions” or “limitations” on visas.^[2]^[3]^[5] The court, relying in part on recent Supreme Court guidance, held that broad words like “regulate” and “restrictions” do not include the separate power to tax.^[2] Because Congress never spoke clearly about a presidential power to impose a $100,000 tax, the judge said the administration crossed a constitutional line.

Direct conflict with a D.C. court that upheld the same policy

This Massachusetts ruling flatly contradicts an earlier decision from the federal district court in Washington, D.C., which upheld the same $100,000 H‑1B charge.^[3]^[5] In that case, brought by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, the D.C. court concluded the September 19, 2025 presidential proclamation fell within the president’s authority to restrict entry under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.^[3]^[5] The court called it a “straightforward” reading of statutes that give presidents broad power to regulate both immigrant and non‑immigrant entry, and it rejected claims that the policy was outside the law.^[3]

The D.C. judge also turned aside arguments that the agencies broke administrative‑procedure rules when they rushed to implement the proclamation.^[3]^[5] Because the court saw the proclamation itself as lawful and explicitly authorized by Congress, it treated the agencies’ follow‑through as limited, ministerial steps that did not trigger deeper review.^[3] That decision left the fee in place “at least for now” and was described by one law firm as a “significant development” that employers should treat as an immediate compliance signal.^[5] The case remains subject to appeal, and now stands in sharp tension with the Massachusetts ruling.

What this means for Trump’s agenda, the Constitution, and conservative priorities

The Massachusetts court did more than strike a single policy; it drew a bright line between immigration control and hidden taxation.^[1]^[2] The Trump administration had publicly framed the $100,000 charge as a way to make sure companies only hired foreign workers valuable enough to justify the cost, and as a tool that could generate “hundreds of billions of dollars” to cut other taxes and pay down debt.^[2]^[5] Those remarks, reported in coverage of the policy, helped challengers argue that this was revenue‑raising first and immigration management second.^[2]^[5] For a conservative audience that cares about limited government, that is a key point: even a policy aimed at protecting American jobs must still follow constitutional rules.

$𝟭𝟬𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗛𝟭𝗕 𝗙𝗲𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗩𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲:

A federal judge has struck down President Trump's requirement that employers pay a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions.

In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin held that the President lacked… pic.twitter.com/djn428nSVt

— Dr Ahmad Rehan Khan (@AhmadRehanKhan) June 8, 2026

At the same time, this fight shows how deeply immigration policy is now tied up in the courts.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[5] One federal judge says the $100,000 fee is a lawful restriction on entry; another says it is an unconstitutional tax that invades Congress’s purse‑string power.^[2]^[3] Until higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, resolve that split, every president will face pressure to push immigration powers to the limit, and every major move will be met by multi‑state lawsuits and business‑group challenges. For citizens who want both secure borders and respect for the Constitution, the real question is how to design tough, pro‑worker immigration reforms that do not invite judges to step in and run policy from the bench.