- A Massachusetts judge struck down the $100,000 surcharge for H-1B visas, labeling it an unconstitutional tax.
- The ruling creates a legal split between federal courts after a D.C. judge previously upheld the fee.
- Employers can temporarily file H-1B petitions without the six-figure payment while the legal battle continues in 2026.
(MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES) – A Massachusetts federal judge ruled that the $100,000 H-1B surcharge established by Presidential Proclamation 10973 is an unlawful tax, a decision that critics say could roll back an administration effort to curb outsourcing and shift the political and legal battleground to Congress and the courts.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued the ruling on June 8, 2026, finding that the payment attached to new H-1B petitions functioned as a tax and lacked Congressional authorization. The order opened a split with another federal court and gave employers a temporary path to file H-1B petitions without the six-figure charge.
President Donald Trump blasted the decision on June 9, 2026 in New York. “These judges are really giving us a hard time, really crazy,” he told reporters. “They’re hurting our country very badly.”
Free toolH-1B Cost Calculator OnlineWhite House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the administration believed the order would be overturned. She said President Donald Trump had authority to restrict entry of classes of noncitizens and argued that the H-1B program had been abused for decades.
DHS struck a similar tone on June 9, 2026, calling the ruling “judicial activism.” That phrase reflects the administration’s political attack on the decision, not a legal finding by the court.
Employers, universities, and hospital systems had argued that the $100,000 H-1B visa fee shut them out of the program. Sorokin wrote that the administration failed to account for the effect on healthcare and education, sectors that often hire through H-1B petitions but cannot absorb a six-figure surcharge per worker.
| Event | Date | Authority/Actor | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presidential Proclamation 10973 signed | September 19, 2025 | President Donald Trump | Created the $100,000 supplemental payment for certain new H-1B petitions |
| Surcharge took effect for new petitions | September 21, 2025 | DHS and USCIS | Applied to new H-1B filings covered by the proclamation |
| D.C. ruling upholding fee | December 2025 | Judge Beryl Howell, D.C. District Court | Accepted the administration’s reliance on INA Section 212(f) |
| FY2027 cap reached under weighted selection | March 31, 2026 | USCIS | 85,000 visas allocated; higher-paid workers received priority |
| Massachusetts ruling striking down surcharge | June 8, 2026 | Judge Leo T. Sorokin, Massachusetts federal court | Held that the payment was an unlawful tax without Congressional approval |
Presidential Proclamation 10973, signed on September 19, 2025, imposed a $100,000 supplemental payment on new H-1B petitions filed after September 21, 2025. The administration cast the measure as part of a labor market policy meant to deter companies from replacing U.S. workers with lower-paid foreign labor.
Sorokin rejected that structure. His ruling treated the payment as a tax because it raised money and operated beyond a standard user fee tied to agency processing. Under the Constitution, Congress controls taxation, and the court said the executive branch could not create that charge on its own.
Washington, D.C., produced the opposite result in December 2025. Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court upheld the fee, accepting the administration’s argument that INA Section 212(f) gave the president broad power to restrict entry and attach conditions to that restriction.
| Proclamation/Rule | Date Signed/Effective | Key Legal Issue | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presidential Proclamation 10973 | Signed September 19, 2025; effective September 21, 2025 | Whether a $100,000 H-1B surcharge is a fee or an unlawful tax | Blocked by Massachusetts ruling; government may seek appeal |
| D.C. District Court decision | December 2025 | Whether INA Section 212(f) authorized the proclamation | Upheld the fee in that case |
| Massachusetts federal court decision | June 8, 2026 | Whether the surcharge required Congressional authorization as a tax | Struck down the surcharge as unlawful |
The split between Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., hardens the legal fight over presidential power, agency funding, and separation of powers. Government lawyers may ask an appeals court to restore the surcharge while the cases continue, and Congress may face pressure to decide whether any H-1B funding charge should be enacted by statute.
USCIS had already changed the program in another way. On March 31, 2026, the agency said the FY2027 numerical allocations of 85,000 visas had been reached through a weighted selection process that favors higher-paid workers rather than a pure lottery.
That selection system matters because the surcharge arrived on top of a narrower gate. Employers seeking H-1B workers faced both a wage-based selection process and, until this ruling, a $100,000 added payment for covered petitions.
The fee fight sits inside the administration’s “Buy American, Hire American” agenda. Supporters said the charge would make outsourcing models less attractive. Opponents, including a coalition of 20 states and universities, said it would gut hiring at nonprofit and public-sector institutions that rely on specialized workers.
Universities, healthcare systems, and rural schools were among the employers most vocal in court filings and public statements. Those institutions said the surcharge blocked hiring of faculty, doctors, nurses, and other professionals whose work often cannot be delayed.
Indian nationals were likely among the workers hit hardest by employer hesitation. They account for about 75% of H-1B beneficiaries, making any price shock in the program especially important for that applicant pool and for employers recruiting from it.
In the near term, employers may file H-1B petitions without the $100,000 surcharge while the Massachusetts order stands. That relief may be temporary. An appeal, a stay, or a new act of Congress could change the filing rules again.
What to watch next
Potential appeals from DHS and the White House, possible Congressional action on H-1B funding, and any USCIS revisions to the weighted selection process after the court split.
USCIS has posted H-1B program guidance in its FAQ. The proclamation appears in the Federal Register, and DHS statements are published through the DHS Press Office. Those records, along with the Massachusetts federal court and D.C. District Court rulings, will shape the next stage of the dispute.
This article discusses a legal ruling with implications for immigration policy and employment; consult qualified sources for legal advice
Information reflects official statements and court decisions; outcomes may change with appeals or new legislation
