Judge in Boston vacates Trump’s $100,000 H-1B employer fee, calling it an unauthorized tax

A federal judge in Boston on Monday invalidated President Donald Trump’s $100,000 payment requirement for employers filing new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the charge functioned as an unlawful tax and that the administration exceeded its statutory authority when it implemented the policy. In a June 8, 2026 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to a coalition of state governments led by California and vacated the materials implementing the policy in its entirety.

The ruling stems from Proclamation 10973, signed September 19, 2025, which added a supplemental $100,000 payment requirement to H-1B petition filings. The proclamation set the effective date as September 21, 2025, specified the requirement would last for 12 months unless extended, and directed federal agencies to enforce the payment requirement during the petition process. The proclamation also provided a waiver pathway, allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the requirement for an individual, company, or industry if a waiver is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to U.S. security or welfare.

The lawsuit was brought by 20 states, which challenged the executive branch’s actions implementing the proclamation through both separation-of-powers arguments and claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court described the parties’ procedural posture as cross-motions for summary judgment, with the decision addressing both the legality of the payment requirement and the administration’s compliance with administrative law requirements. The memorandum and order also notes that the plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss certain claims against some Department of Justice, Department of Labor, and Labor-related parties without prejudice.

In addressing the separation-of-powers claim, Sorokin held that the $100,000 payment requirement amounts to a tax rather than a regulatory penalty. The opinion reasoned that the nature of the exaction, including that it raises revenue when paid, supports characterizing it as a tax for constitutional purposes, regardless of how the policy labels the charge. The court further concluded that Congress had not delegated taxing power to the president through the Immigration and Nationality Act provisions cited in the proclamation, and it applied Supreme Court guidance from Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that the president lacked delegated taxing authority in the tariff context where the relevant statute did not clearly authorize that power.

The court also found that the policy was implemented in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements. The opinion states that it was undisputed defendants issued the policy as a legislative rule without complying with the APA process and that the administration did not meet the “good cause” standard for bypassing notice-and-comment. The judge concluded the defendants exceeded statutory authority in implementing the policy and ruled for the plaintiffs on the APA claims, including the procedural violation.

As a remedy, the court vacated the policy materials implementing the $100,000 payment requirement and issued a declaratory judgment that the policy is unlawful under both the APA and the Constitution. The court declined to issue a permanent injunction, explaining that complete relief was provided through vacatur of the challenged agency action. In the concluding orders, Sorokin directed the clerk to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.