Full Breakdown
Federal Judge Probes Limits of Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
5/30/2026, 1:14:38 AM
The Legal Challenge: Scope of Presidential Authority
On May 29, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston heard arguments from 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging President Donald Trump’s September proclamation that raised the fee for new H-1B visas to $100,000. The judge asked whether the president has unchecked authority to impose the fee and where legal limits lie.
Background: H-1B Program and Recent Fee Increase
The H-1B program limits annual admissions to 65,000 visas plus 20,000 for advanced-degree holders, granting three to six years of stay. Before the proclamation, filing fees ranged $2,000–$5,000. The $100,000 surcharge aims to deter foreign hires. By Feb. 15, USCIS recorded 85 payments.
Key Actors
- Judge Leo Sorokin – Obama-appointed judge overseeing the case.
- Tiberius Davis – DOJ lawyer defending the fee.
- James Richardson – California DOJ attorney for the states.
- Chamber of Commerce (Washington, D.C.) – Business group supporting the fee.
- 20 Democratic state attorneys general – Plaintiffs alleging excess authority.
Data on Fee Implementation
The previous fee range: $2,000–$5,000. Current fee: $100,000 per H-1B petition. Payments received: 85 as of mid-February. Annual visa cap: 65,000 regular, 20,000 advanced-degree slots.
Government Position
The Department of Justice says the president’s “sweeping” immigration authority allows the fee to restrict entry of foreign nationals deemed harmful to U.S. interests. The Chamber of Commerce echoed this, saying Trump’s broad immigration powers legitimize the surcharge.
State Attorneys General Opposition
Represented by James Richardson, the states argue the fee is an unconstitutional tax because Congress did not delegate tax authority in the immigration statute. Richardson cited the Supreme Court’s February ruling striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs as precedent for deeming the H-1B fee unlawful.
Conflicting Interpretations
Judge Sorokin’s hypothetical questions—whether the fee could apply to Americans marrying non-citizens or force equity forfeiture by companies—show the lack of clear statutory guidance on its scope. No ruling yet decides if the surcharge is a tax or a permissible immigration fee.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The effect is to incentivize companies to train up and hire American workers,” — Tiberius Davis, U.S. Department of Justice
- “It’s a very sweeping power,” — Tiberius Davis, U.S. Department of Justice
- “I’m trying to understand the government’s position on the scope,” — Judge Leo Sorokin
- “Congress does not delegate a tax authority in ambiguous language,” — James Richardson, California Department of Justice
- “It’s clearly broad language,” — Judge Leo Sorokin
Outlook: Next Steps in Litigation
The case, *State of California et al v. Mullin* (No. 25-cv-13829, District of Massachusetts), remains pending. Upcoming hearings will examine the fee’s constitutional and statutory basis, with possible effects on immigration policy and presidential authority over such fees.
