Judge Rules Administration’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Unlawful

Action: A Federal judge in Massachusetts has vacated the Administration’s September 2025 proclamation, and related agency actions, requiring employers to make a $100,000 payment for certain new H-1B visa petitions. However, other H-1B policy changes have been finalized – such as the Department of Homeland Security’s wage-weighted selection rule – or are in process – such as the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed prevailing-wage rule.

Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead^®

• The US District Court held that the payment functioned as a tax imposed without Congressional authorization. The Court also held that the action violated the Administrative Procedure Act. 
• The Court cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, in which the Court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not delegate taxing powers to the President. 
• Legal uncertainty remains. A separate Federal court had previously upheld the fee and other litigation is pending. The Administration has indicated confidence that the Massachusetts order will be reversed on appeal. 
• Regardless of the legal challenges, the fee is scheduled to expire in September 2026 unless extended.  
• These developments come as the Administration has taken various actions to reduce both legal and illegal entry into the US, including tightening enforcement for errors on the Form I-9 and amending the process for applying for a green card. 
• What this means for business: 
  • Filing and budgeting: Employers that paused H-1B sponsorships, delayed offers, or budgeted for the payment should reassess near-term filing plans while monitoring agency guidance, stay requests, and appeals. 
  • Talent strategy: The ruling may reopen H-1B sponsorship as a practical option for employers unable to absorb the added cost, especially those with specialized STEM hiring needs, although it will be important to monitor litigation in this area.
  •  Compliance: Core H-1B obligations remain unchanged, including Labor Condition Application attestations, prevailing-wage requirements, and documentation of role requirements. 
  • Policy risk: The ruling does not resolve broader debates over skilled immigration, wage protections, workforce development, and US competitiveness.