H-1B $100,000 Fee: Where Things Stand After Court Intervention
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is urging a federal appeals court in Boston to restore a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, arguing that a lower court was wrong to block the policy.
The fee was introduced under a September 2025 presidential proclamation and requires employers to pay a one-off charge before H-1B visa petitions can be processed. The administration has defended the measure as part of efforts to reduce immigration and protect domestic employment, saying the programme has been misused to replace US workers with lower-cost foreign labour.
On 8 June, US District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled against the policy after a challenge brought by 20 Democratic-led states. He found that the fee exceeded presidential authority and amounted to a tax, which falls under Congress’s control, breaching the separation of powers.
Four days later, he agreed to temporarily suspend his ruling while the First Circuit considers whether to grant a stay during the appeal process. In a filing submitted on 18 June, DHS argued that the fee is not a tax but a lawful use of presidential powers under immigration law. It also stated that, even if the charge were considered a tax, the president would still have authority to impose it.
The department further asked the appeals court to limit the injunction to the states involved in the lawsuit rather than applying it nationwide. The timing of the case is significant, as the H-1B petition window for the 2027 cycle opened on 1 April and closes on 30 June.
DHS warned that employers may be rushing to file applications ahead of the deadline, which it said could lead to an increase in foreign workers entering the system and potentially affect wages and job availability for US workers. The dispute is being heard alongside two other legal challenges to the fee, including cases in California and the District of Columbia.
The outcome of the appeals process is expected to depend on whether the court classifies the charge as an unauthorised tax or a legitimate immigration restriction, a decision that could shape the extent of presidential authority over employment-based visa policy.
