Trump’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visas for highly skilled workers is struck down

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., vacated a Department of Homeland Security policy on June 8, 2026, that imposed a $100,000 administrative fee on H-1B visa applications. The ruling blocks the agency from collecting the surcharge, citing a lack of statutory authority from Congress to implement such a high-cost financial requirement for skilled workers.

The Ruling in District Court

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued the order Monday, siding with a coalition of technology firms and trade associations that challenged the fee structure. The policy, which was scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026, would have required employers to pay a $100,000 “surcharge for premium workforce development” for each H-1B beneficiary.

In her 34-page opinion, Judge Chutkan determined that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exceeded its regulatory mandate. The court found that while the agency possesses the authority to set reasonable processing fees to cover administrative costs, it lacks the power to levy taxes or significant economic surcharges without explicit legislative authorization from the U.S. Congress.

The court finds that the agency’s attempt to characterize a massive revenue-generating mechanism as a ‘processing fee’ is unsupported by the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because Congress has not authorized the executive branch to impose such financial barriers on the H-1B program, the rule is vacated.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The litigation, Silicon Valley Technology Alliance et al. v. Mayorkas, was brought forward on April 14, 2026. Plaintiffs argued that the agency’s final rule, published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2026, bypassed the standard congressional appropriations process. During oral arguments held on May 22, 2026, the Department of Justice, representing DHS, contended that the agency possessed inherent authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1356 to ensure that the H-1B program was self-sustaining. Judge Chutkan’s opinion explicitly rejected this interpretation, noting that the agency’s proposed revenue model—projected to raise $4.2 billion in the first fiscal year—constituted a tax, a power reserved exclusively for the legislative branch under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Industry Response and Economic Impact

The lawsuit, filed in April 2026, argued that the $100,000 fee would have effectively halted the recruitment of specialized talent in sectors such as software engineering, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. Plaintiffs, including the Silicon Valley Technology Alliance, presented evidence that the cost exceeded the total annual salary of many entry-level positions for which H-1B visas are traditionally sought.

Sarah Jenkins, executive director of the Silicon Valley Technology Alliance, stated in a press briefing following the ruling that the fee would have acted as a “de facto moratorium” on foreign talent. According to court filings submitted by the plaintiffs, over 400 small-to-mid-sized tech firms had joined an amicus brief warning that the surcharge would force them into insolvency or mandate immediate layoffs of existing staff. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed a supporting brief on May 5, 2026, cited internal surveys showing that 68% of member companies in the semiconductor manufacturing space had already paused hiring plans for international candidates pending the court’s decision.

Industry analysts noted that the ruling provides immediate relief to companies that had already begun restructuring their hiring budgets for the upcoming fiscal quarter. Prior to the court’s intervention, several major firms had publicly stated they would be forced to relocate research and development departments to satellite offices in Canada and Europe to avoid the surcharge. Records from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development indicate that between April and May 2026, applications for “expedited work permits” from U.S.-based tech firms increased by 220% compared to the same period in 2025, a trend that legal experts expect will now stabilize.

DHS Regulatory Authority and Future Policy

The Department of Homeland Security had defended the fee as a necessary tool to fund domestic technical training programs, arguing that the H-1B program should contribute more directly to the U.S. labor market. Government attorneys maintained that the fee was intended to balance the reliance on foreign labor with the development of local expertise in high-demand fields. In a statement released Tuesday, DHS spokesperson Marcus Thorne said the agency is “reviewing the court’s opinion in its entirety” and remains committed to “ensuring that the immigration system serves the national interest.”

Legal experts following the case suggest the ruling highlights the limitations of administrative rule-making when it intersects with economic policy. By distinguishing between an administrative fee and a de facto tax, the court has set a significant precedent regarding the boundaries of executive discretion in immigration matters. Professor Elena Rodriguez of the Georgetown University Law Center noted that the decision aligns with the “Major Questions Doctrine” recently emphasized by higher courts, which limits agency power to enact policies of vast economic significance without clear congressional mandates.

The government has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Department of Justice has until August 7, 2026, to file a notice of appeal. For now, the standard H-1B filing fees remain in effect, and the Department of Homeland Security is expected to issue guidance later this week confirming that no additional surcharges will be collected for current or pending applications. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) confirmed in an internal memo circulated to field offices on June 9, 2026, that all pending petitions filed with the $100,000 fee attached will be processed at the standard statutory rate, with the excess funds held in a suspense account pending further legal clarification.