Massive relief for H-1B applicants as US judge scraps $100,000 visa fee

A federal judge has dealt a major blow to the Trump administration's immigration agenda by invalidating a controversial $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B visa petitions, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for employers across the United States and thousands of skilled foreign workers, particularly from India.

In a ruling issued Monday, US District Judge Leo Sorokin concluded that the administration lacked the legal authority to impose the unprecedented charge, finding that the fee amounted to a tax that had never been authorised by Congress.

"...the Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress," US District Court judge said in a ruling.

The decision marks a major victory for states, universities, healthcare institutions and business groups that argued the policy threatened access to critical talent in sectors already struggling with labour shortages.

The H-1B program allows US employers to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals when qualified domestic candidates are unavailable. Technology firms have long been among the largest users of the visa category, while hospitals, research institutions and educational organisations also depend heavily on the program. Indian nationals account for the overwhelming majority of approved H-1B beneficiaries.

The administration had defended the steep fee increase as part of a broader effort to prioritise American workers and discourage companies from relying on foreign labour. Critics, however, warned that multiplying visa costs to such levels would effectively shut many employers out of the program and make it significantly harder to recruit doctors, teachers, researchers and other specialised professionals.

A coalition of 20 states challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that the added financial burden would undermine public education systems, limit university hiring, weaken academic research and worsen healthcare staffing shortages. The states maintained that many institutions were already facing recruitment challenges before the fee increase was announced.

Judge Sorokin agreed with those concerns, ruling that the executive branch had exceeded its authority under federal law and failed to comply with requirements established by the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies create and implement regulations.

The decision creates a sharp contrast with an earlier federal court ruling in Washington, D.C., which had allowed the fee to remain in place while litigation continued. That case, brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is currently under appeal, raising the possibility of conflicting outcomes across different federal appellate courts.

Additional legal challenges are also moving through the courts, including a separate lawsuit filed in California by labor organizations and religious groups. The growing number of cases increases the likelihood that higher courts may eventually be asked to resolve the dispute.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell welcomed the ruling, saying it would help educational institutions and research centers continue attracting top talent while filling critical vacancies.

Healthcare advocates also praised the decision. American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala said the judgment would help remove barriers that prevent international medical graduates and other highly trained professionals from serving communities facing physician shortages, particularly in rural and underserved regions.

The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticised the ruling, accusing the court of interfering with the administration's immigration reform efforts. Administration officials maintain that the policy was designed to protect American jobs and have indicated they will continue defending it.

The White House has expressed confidence that the decision will be overturned on appeal, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle over one of the most aggressive immigration fee measures proposed in recent years.

With AP inputs