What is the story about?
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, contradicting an earlier federal court ruling
that upheld the fee hike. The administration had announced the much higher fee as a measure to prevent foreign workers from taking American jobs.
U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin stated.
H-1B visas are designed for high-skilled jobs that are challenging to fill with American workers. Technology companies, which are the largest users of this visa, account for nearly three-quarters of approvals granted to workers from India. The states argued that the use of the H-1B program to fill vacancies for essential positions such as doctors and teachers was already difficult prior to the implementation of the increased fee.
Before the announced increase, most H-1B visa applications cost several thousand dollars. The fee hike caused confusion and panic among employers, students, and workers both in the United States and abroad, leading to several lawsuits, including one in Boston.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., and has appealed a denial of a summary judgment against the fee hike, which remains in effect until September 2026 when it is scheduled to expire. The recent ruling is a summary judgment that contradicts the previous stance. Another lawsuit was initiated in federal court in San Francisco by religious groups and labor organizations, raising the possibility of differing rulings across three appellate court circuits.
The states contended that the policy obstructs their ability to hire educators for primary and secondary schools, staff public colleges and universities, hinder academic research, and contribute to a decline in the number of medical workers.
“The Proclamation makes various overtures to domestic economic policy goals to justify the unprecedented $100,000 fee,” the plaintiffs stated in their complaint. “However, the Proclamation does not indicate that the President considered how the fee would affect the Plaintiff States and their ability to provide residents access to education, healthcare, and other basic human needs.”
A statement from the Department of Homeland Security expressed disagreement with the ruling, calling it “blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”
“Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric,” the statement said.
