Trump $100,000 H-1B Fee was declared unlawful by US District Judge Leo Sorokin, who wrote a 42-page decision finding the payment functioned as a tax.
Sorokin ruled that the president had no power or delegated authority to impose the payment and that Congress had not authorized a tax on H-1B petitions.
The ruling sided with a coalition of 20 states led by California that filed suit in December, and it ordered the required visa payment set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The judge said the record lacked any indication that the administration reasonably explained the decision and that federal agency rationales did not offer a reasonable explanation for enacting a heavy tax on the H-1B program.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had said the $100,000 payment applied to new applications filed on or after Sept. 21, and that the fee would apply only to new applicants living abroad, not to renewals.
Reactions And Implications
The Department of Homeland Security called Sorokin's decision blatant judicial activism and defended the administration's immigration reforms, saying recent changes were meant to protect program integrity and the US workforce.
The DHS statement said the policy aimed to ensure employers prioritize hiring US workers, particularly in high-skilled fields, and that the Trump administration remained committed to safeguarding opportunities for American workers.
The president had argued the H-1B program had been exploited to replace rather than supplement American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor and that this practice undermined economic and national security.
Background material in the cases noted that Congress created the H-1B visa program in 1990 and capped visas at 65,000, with another 20,000 for people with advanced degrees.
Sources also noted that employers have historically been required to pay certain fees, commonly between $1,700 and $4,500, and that the Trump proclamation added the $100,000 payment to new H-1B applications.
States that challenged the payment warned the fee would hamper hiring of high-skilled workers in primary and secondary schools, public colleges and universities, and medical facilities.
