Federal Judge in Massachusetts Vacates Trump-Era $100,000 H-1B Fee, Finding It Exceeded Executive Authority and Violated the APA

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that the policy implementing a presidential $100,000 payment requirement for new H-1B visa petitions functioned as an unauthorized tax and was issued without required notice-and-comment rulemaking.

4 min readEditor-approved Apex article

A federal judge in Boston on Monday vacated the Trump administration’s policy implementing a $100,000 payment requirement tied to new H-1B visas, ruling that the measure exceeded the executive branch’s authority and was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. In a memorandum and order dated June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts declared the policy materials implementing the requirement “unlawful” and vacated them in their entirety. The decision resolved cross motions for summary judgment and included dismissal of some claims involving the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor without prejudice.

The underlying policy originated in Presidential Proclamation 10973, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which President Trump signed on September 19, 2025. The proclamation set a payment requirement for employers submitting petitions for entry as H-1B nonimmigrants in specialty occupations, stating that entry would be restricted unless the relevant petitions were accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment. The proclamation specified that the restriction would take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on September 21, 2025 and would expire after 12 months unless extended, and it directed the Department of Homeland Security to enforce the restriction.

The case was brought by 20 states, including California, that challenged the administration’s implementation of the fee through actions taken by federal agencies responsible for immigration processing and guidance. In the June 8 order, Sorokin described the plaintiffs as “twenty states” that sued executive departments and officials for their roles in implementing the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement. The judge’s factual background also described how agencies issued written and electronic materials to implement the policy soon after the proclamation was signed, including clarifications about the payment requirement’s applicability.

According to the court’s order, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs sent an email on September 19, 2025 explaining that the proclamation would take effect at 12:01 a.m. on September 21, 2025. The court also said that on September 20, 2025, USCIS published a memorandum clarifying that the proclamation applied prospectively to petitions not yet filed, and that Customs and Border Protection and the Department of State issued similar internal memoranda. The court further noted that the Department of State and USCIS published “H-1B FAQ” documents and that the Department of State posted a webpage confirming that the restrictions applied only to H-1B petitions filed after the proclamation’s effective date.

In reaching its conclusion on the merits, Sorokin ruled that the $100,000 payment requirement functioned as a tax, not a permissible regulatory payment or penalty. The judge said that because neither INA section 212(f) nor INA section 215(a) delegated Congress’s taxing power to the president, the policy could not be justified as an exercise of delegated authority under the immigration laws. The order also addressed arguments raised by the government attempting to characterize the payment as something other than a tax, and it concluded that the substance and operation of the payment requirement demonstrated it was a tax regardless of its label.

The court also held that the policy’s implementation violated the APA because the agency materials were legislative rules that required notice-and-comment rulemaking. Sorokin found it undisputed that the government’s challenged memoranda, FAQ documents, and other materials were issued without notice and comment. The court rejected the administration’s reliance on exceptions, including a “good cause” rationale, concluding that the failure to comply with notice-and-comment procedures was not harmless error. The judge said the agency materials “create[d] rights, assign[ed] duties, [and] impose[d] obligations” by effectuating the $100,000 requirement, bringing them within the APA’s procedural requirements.

On remedy, Sorokin vacated the policy materials implementing the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement in their entirety and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The judge declined to issue a separate permanent injunction, reasoning that vacatur provided complete relief. The order specified that the Clerk would enter judgment with each side bearing its own fees and costs, and it left in place a partial dismissal of certain claims against the Department of Justice and the Secretary of Labor without prejudice. The decision leaves the proclamation’s future implementation subject to the effect of the vacatur and any further proceedings in the case.

Why It Matters

The vacatur blocks enforcement of the $100,000 payment requirement through the specific agency policy materials Sorokin found unlawful, affecting processing of at least some categories of new H-1B petitions covered by the policy.
The ruling underscores limits on using immigration statutes to impose measures the court views as revenue-raising without clear congressional delegation.
The decision reinforces APA requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking when agency guidance and implementation documents function as legislative rules that impose obligations.
The case’s remedy, a nationwide vacatur of the implementing policy materials, creates immediate legal uncertainty for employers and agencies relying on those materials for compliance.

Sources

Key Facts

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued a June 8, 2026 memorandum and order in State of California et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et al. (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-13829).
The court vacated policy materials implementing a $100,000 payment requirement tied to new H-1B petitions and declared that policy unlawful under the APA and the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles.
The requirement traced to Presidential Proclamation 10973, signed September 19, 2025, which set an effective date of September 21, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. Eastern and stated the restriction would expire after 12 months unless extended.
Sorokin ruled that the $100,000 payment requirement amounts to a tax and exceeded presidential authority because the INA provisions cited do not delegate Congress’s taxing power.
The court found the agency materials implementing the fee were legislative rules that triggered notice-and-comment rulemaking, and it rejected the government’s justification for skipping those procedures.
The judge declined to issue a separate permanent injunction because vacatur provided complete relief, and ordered judgment for the plaintiffs with each side bearing its own fees and costs.