Two federal courts have now struck down the $100,000 H-1B payment, calling it unlawful and stopping agencies from collecting it.
Story Highlights
- A Massachusetts judge ruled the $100,000 H-1B payment was an unauthorized tax and vacated it nationwide.
- A California judge separately blocked agency implementation for skipping required rulemaking steps.
- The First Circuit denied a government request to pause the ruling; agencies said they would comply.
- The White House framed the payment as a lawful entry restriction under immigration law, but courts disagreed.
What The Courts Actually Decided
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts ruled on June 8, 2026, that the $100,000 payment tied to new H-1B petitions was not a penalty but a tax, and that President Trump lacked congressional authorization to impose it. The court vacated the policy in full. The ruling also barred the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department from enforcing the charge. This was a final judgment that applied nationwide, according to officials who described the order.
On the West Coast, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in the Northern District of California reached a similar bottom line by a different path. He ruled that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department failed to follow required rulemaking steps before trying to collect the payment. That meant the agencies could not implement the fee absent proper procedures. This independent decision added to the legal wall against the charge in late September and early October 2026.
Why This Matters For Separation Of Powers
Congress holds the power to tax and to set visa fees. The Massachusetts court concluded the $100,000 payment looked and worked like a tax, not a routine filing fee. Because Congress did not grant the President authority to levy such a tax, the court said the executive branch overstepped. That view draws a bright line: major new payments on visas must come from Congress, not from a proclamation. For conservatives, that protects the Constitution and checks bureaucratic growth.
The California case focused on process. The court said agencies cannot skip notice-and-comment before enforcing a major new payment scheme. That means the bureaucracy must follow the law before it burdens employers or workers. It also means no surprise charges that hit small businesses and families midstream. Together, the two rulings guard both the Constitution’s structure and the public’s right to be heard before rules take effect.
What The Administration Argued, And What Still Stands
The White House said the payment was an entry condition under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allow the President to restrict entry he deems harmful to U.S. interests. Officials framed the goal as stopping abuse that can push out American workers. Courts did not accept that framing in this context. Judges said those immigration powers do not let a President impose a tax-sized payment without Congress saying so first.
The H-1B visa fee remains inactive under an earlier court decision, issued after the first lawsuit challenging the new charge was filed.https://t.co/fGi4VFwqPC#h1b #h1bvisa #visa #usvisa #immigration #courtruling #dhs #uscis #workvisahttps://t.co/fGi4VFwqPC
— EB5InvestorsMagazine (@EB5InvestorsMag) October 1, 2026
After the Massachusetts ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to pause the decision while the government appealed. Following that denial, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it would comply and not collect the $100,000 payment. Employers filing new H-1B petitions therefore should not see this charge at intake. If appeals continue, the core question will still be the same: who sets large payments, Congress or the executive branch?
How Employers And Workers Should Read This
Two courts reached the same result by different routes. One said the payment was an unauthorized tax. The other said the agencies broke rulemaking rules. That dual track makes the legal footing against the fee stronger. It also helps prevent workarounds that repackage the same payment under a new label. For readers worried about government overreach and surprise costs, this is a reminder: when the executive crosses clear lines, courts can and do push back.
The Bottom Line For Conservative Readers
These rulings do not weaken border control or national security. They reinforce the core idea that big policy and big payments must come from Congress. That is how our system protects liberty, small businesses, and families from sudden top-down mandates. If lawmakers want new visa charges, they can debate them in the open and pass a law. Until then, agencies should stick to the authority they have, follow the law, and respect the Constitution’s limits.
Sources:
reason.com, mass.gov, hindustantimes.com, whitehouse.gov
