SouthernWorldwide.com – A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has once again issued a significant ruling against the Trump administration, this time invalidating a policy that imposed a $100,000 fee on employers seeking H-1B visas.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, based in Massachusetts, determined that the Trump administration did not possess the legal authority to implement such a substantial fee. He concluded that this requirement constituted a tax, a power exclusively reserved for Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
This latest decision marks another setback for the administration’s immigration policies, following Sorokin’s previous ruling that blocked President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The judge’s new ruling was issued on Monday and addressed a legal challenge brought forth by a coalition of 20 states.
The challenged proclamation, issued in September 2025, introduced a new $100,000 payment requirement for companies petitioning for foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. This program typically allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign professionals, with approximately 65,000 such visas issued annually.
In his 42-page decision, Judge Sorokin found that the Trump administration’s argument for the fee was legally insufficient. The administration had contended that the measure was necessary to combat perceived abuses of the visa system and to safeguard American workers.
The proclamation itself stated that the H-1B program had been exploited to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor, and the new fee was intended to address these concerns. However, Sorokin rejected this reasoning.
Sorokin’s ruling emphasized that while the Executive Branch holds broad authority regarding the admission and exclusion of noncitizens, this authority is not unlimited. He cited existing case law to support his interpretation.
The judge specifically found that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants presidents significant discretion over immigration matters but does not empower them to levy taxes. He stated, “While the Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens, … that discretion is not boundless.”
The $100,000 fee was significantly higher than the typical filing fees, which ranged from $2,000 to $5,000, depending on the company’s size and the application type, prior to the administration’s proclamation.
Beyond the constitutional question of taxing authority, Sorokin also found that federal agencies had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This violation occurred because the policy was implemented without the standard notice-and-comment rulemaking process, and the agencies were deemed to have exceeded their statutory authority.
As a remedy, Judge Sorokin declared the policy unlawful and rescinded it in its entirety. This means the $100,000 H-1B visa fee is no longer in effect.
Judge Sorokin, a graduate of Yale and Columbia Law School, was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in 2013 and confirmed by the Senate in 2014. His previous involvement in blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which he deemed likely unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, highlights a pattern of judicial review concerning the administration’s immigration policies.
The Supreme Court is currently expected to rule on the birthright citizenship case. The administration is anticipated to appeal Sorokin’s latest decision regarding the H-1B visa fees, indicating a continued legal contest over the extent of presidential authority in immigration policy and the boundaries of executive power.
In a separate development, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington had previously declined to block the H-1B fee policy in a challenge filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in December 2025. Howell dismissed claims that the additional charge violated federal immigration law.
The legal battles surrounding these immigration policies underscore the ongoing tension between executive actions and judicial oversight, particularly concerning the interpretation of constitutional powers and statutory authorities.
