Donald Trump's $100,000 Tech Visa Fee Struck Down as Unlawful After Generating Only 85 Payments Worldwide

A federal judge has struck down one of the Trump administration's most controversial immigration measures, ruling that a $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B visa applications was an unlawful tax that Congress never authorised. The policy generated only 85 payments worldwide before being blocked, raising fresh questions about whether employers were willing to absorb the unprecedented cost.

The challenge centred on a fee announced by President Donald Trump in September that dramatically increased the cost of obtaining certain H-1B visas, particularly for employers that rely on highly skilled foreign workers. Despite the administration's ambitions, only 85 payments were made worldwide before the court intervened, a figure critics say highlights the reluctance of employers to pay a six-figure charge for access to the programme.

The administration argued the payment was a lawful penalty authorised under federal immigration law, which allows a president to restrict the entry of foreign nationals deemed detrimental to US interests. Sorokin disagreed, concluding the charge functioned as a tax rather than a penalty and therefore required congressional approval.

'Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,' Sorokin wrote.

The ruling prevents both the US State Department and US Citizenship and Immigration Services from enforcing the fee unless Congress expressly authorises it.

Court Draws a Line on Presidential Authority

Sorokin relied in part on a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited a president's ability to impose broad revenue-raising measures without clear congressional approval.

The judge said immigration law did not give Trump authority to impose what effectively amounted to a tax on visa applicants. The decision marks another test of how far executive power can extend in immigration policy, an area where presidents have increasingly relied on unilateral action.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said the administration remained confident the ruling would be overturned on appeal. 'President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America's best interests, and that is exactly what he did,' Rogers said.

A Broader Fight Over Legal Immigration

The fee formed part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to tighten immigration rules and place greater scrutiny on legal pathways into the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security argued that temporary visa programmes were never intended to become a routine route to long-term residence. Critics countered that the measure imposed an extraordinary burden on employers and applicants who were already using established legal channels.

That disagreement helped turn what might have been a niche visa dispute into a broader debate about the future of legal immigration.

Employers Warned of Chilling Effect

The strongest opposition came from industries that depend heavily on highly skilled foreign workers. The H-1B programme issues 65,000 visas annually, with another 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees. Before Trump's proclamation, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in filing and processing costs.

The jump to $100,000 represented a dramatic increase. Opponents pointed to the fact that only 85 payments were recorded worldwide, arguing the figure showed how sharply the fee altered employer behaviour and raised doubts about the policy's practicality.

Business groups warned the fee could discourage companies from sponsoring workers, complicate recruitment plans and make the United States less attractive to global talent. For sectors such as technology, healthcare and research, the consequences could extend well beyond immigration policy.

States Take the Lead in Court

The lawsuit was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office coordinated the coalition of 20 Democratic attorneys general challenging the policy. Bonta welcomed the ruling, describing the fee as an unlawful barrier that threatened employers, workers and legal immigrants alike.

'This tax was an attack on America's ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,' he said.

The case reflects a broader trend in which state attorneys general have become increasingly prominent players in national immigration disputes, with major policy battles now frequently unfolding in courtrooms as well as in Congress.

Legal Fight Far From Over

The administration has already indicated it will appeal, meaning the legal battle is unlikely to end with Sorokin's ruling. Officials are also continuing to pursue other changes to the H-1B programme, including enhanced vetting procedures and proposals that would favour higher-paid and more highly skilled applicants.

For now, however, the ruling removes a major financial hurdle that critics said would discourage legal immigration and disrupt employers' hiring plans. It also serves as a reminder that while presidents wield significant authority over immigration policy, courts remain willing to intervene when executive actions cross into powers reserved for Congress.