US Court Strikes Down $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, Calls It Unconstitutional

A federal judge in the US state of Massachusetts struck down a presidential order that would have imposed a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa petitions. The ruling, delivered on June 8, 2026, declared the fee requirement unconstitutional and cancelled all government guidance that had put it into effect. Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled in favour of 20 US states that had challenged the measure.

The court held that the $100,000 charge functioned as a tax, not merely a restriction on entry. Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to impose and collect taxes. The President may regulate immigration, but that general authority does not automatically include the power to raise revenue. The court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — specifically Sections 212(f) and 215(a) — does not clearly grant the executive branch the power to impose such a large monetary levy on employers. The court also ruled that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the implementing agencies issued their guidance without the required notice-and-comment process, and the fee amount was not tied to recovering the cost of processing applications, which is what the INA permits.

The H-1B is a non-immigrant work visa that allows US employers to temporarily hire foreign nationals in specialty occupations requiring at least a bachelor's degree and specialised knowledge. Congress has set a yearly cap of 65,000 visas for most private-sector employers, with an additional 20,000 reserved for holders of advanced degrees from US institutions. Government bodies, universities, and non-profit research organisations are exempt from this cap. Before the disputed order, petition fees ranged from approximately $960 to $7,595. Indians have consistently been the largest beneficiary group, accounting for more than 70 percent of all H-1B approvals every year since 2015, making this ruling directly relevant to India's IT and skilled-worker community.

The court described the policy as 'arbitrary and capricious', noting that the administering agencies failed to explain why such a steep fee was appropriate, ignored the impact on institutions such as hospitals and universities that depend on cap-exempt H-1B petitions, and did not account for the reliance interests of employers who had already planned their hiring around the previous fee structure. The court drew support from an earlier Supreme Court ruling this year in Learning Resources v Trump, where similar presidential tariff orders were struck down on the logic that Congress does not delegate its core powers through vague statutory language.

For Indian aspirants preparing for competitive exams, this case is significant on multiple fronts. It illustrates the separation of powers in the US constitutional system — particularly the distinction between executive power over immigration and congressional power over taxation. It also underscores the importance of the Administrative Procedure Act as a check on executive overreach. For UPSC and other exams, the India-US bilateral dimension matters: India is the single largest source of H-1B workers, a programme that supports India's IT services exports and remittances. Any major change to H-1B policy has direct economic consequences for India.