A federal judge in Boston struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B skilled worker visas on Tuesday, 9 June 2026, ruling that the executive branch had imposed an unconstitutional tax without the required congressional sign-off.
US District Court Judge Leo Sorokin sided with a coalition of 20 states that challenged the policy.
The judge found the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing how agencies issue regulations.
As reported by NPR, the decision effectively blocks the fee, which had caused significant disruption across the US tech sector since its announcement.
What the H-1B ruling means for the tech industry
The H-1B visa is the primary mechanism through which US companies hire highly skilled foreign workers.
Silicon Valley’s biggest employers, from cloud computing giants to AI labs, rely on it to recruit engineers, researchers and product developers who cannot be sourced at scale from the domestic workforce alone.
The $100,000 fee was a structural barrier for smaller tech companies. The standard H-1B application already costs several thousand dollars in filing fees and legal costs.
Adding a six-figure surcharge on top of that effectively locked out any company without the resources of a Fortune 500 firm from the programme.
The administration had framed the policy as protection for American workers against cheaper overseas labour. T
ech industry leaders pushed back, arguing it would divert global talent to Canada, the UK and Germany, where immigration conditions for skilled workers remain far more accessible, and ultimately hurt US competitiveness in the global AI race.
The timing matters. The race to dominate artificial intelligence is as much a talent competition as a capital one. The countries and companies that attract the best engineers and researchers win.
A $100,000 visa fee does not make America more competitive in that race; it makes the visa queue for Toronto and London move faster.
What the court actually decided
Judge Sorokin’s core finding was straightforward: the power to tax belongs to Congress, not the executive branch. An agency cannot impose a fee of this scale through a policy directive without a legislative mandate behind it.
The ruling currently stands as binding within the federal district.
A separate lawsuit against the fee, brought by religious and labour organisations, is still active in San Francisco federal court. That creates the possibility of conflicting rulings between appellate circuits, which would likely force the issue to the Supreme Court eventually.
Whether the Trump administration appeals the Boston ruling or attempts to legislate a scaled-back version of the fee through Congress remains to be seen.
