The $100,000 H-1B Fee Has Been Struck Down After Nine Months

Nine months after it was imposed, the $100,000 H-1B fee that reshaped how employers think about international hiring was struck down by a federal judge on June 8, 2026. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, sitting in the District of Massachusetts, blocked the Trump administration's $100,000 supplementary fee for new H-1B visas, ruling that the administration had imposed an unauthorized tax without congressional approval.

For foreign nationals who have been watching this policy since September 2025, the ruling matters. But what it actually changes deserves careful reading before anyone adjusts their immigration strategy around it.

What the Court Actually Decided

Judge Sorokin ruled that only Congress has the power to change federal immigration policy to include such a requirement, which he viewed as a tax, and that lawmakers had not authorized the fee. The ruling was issued in response to a lawsuit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging the fee on constitutional and procedural grounds.

In a 42-page ruling, Judge Sorokin agreed with the plaintiffs who argued the fee imposed by President Trump's executive order in September amounted to an "unauthorized tax," as opposed to a "regulatory payment" as the Trump administration contended. "The President has no authority to levy a tax unless such a power is delegated by Congress through statute," Sorokin wrote.

The Trump administration primarily contended that the judge had no authority to get involved in the visa fee dispute and that Trump's action was un-reviewable for multiple reasons. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson called the decision "blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump's historic efforts for immigration reform."

What This Ruling Does and Does Not Change

The fee is vacated nationwide as of June 8, 2026. Employers who were subject to the $100,000 charge on new H-1B petitions for workers entering from outside the United States are no longer required to pay it for now.

But there are important limitations to what this ruling means in practice.

First, the Trump administration is expected to appeal. The ruling is from a district court, and the administration has already signaled its disagreement strongly. The fee could be reinstated during appeal, challenged further, or brought to Congress for legislative authorization. This ruling ends the fee's current form. It does not necessarily end the policy debate around it.

Second, the behavioral shift the fee triggered among employers over the past nine months does not automatically reverse with the court order. Employers who quietly stepped back from international hiring decisions, restructured roles, or deprioritized H-1B sponsorship as a result of the fee's existence are not obligated to reverse those decisions simply because the fee has been struck down. The chilling effect was real. Its reversal will be slower and less complete than the ruling itself.

Third, the fee was one of four major policy actions targeting H-1B since last fall. The lottery restructuring that favors higher-wage positions remains in place. The proposed 33% wage floor increase through the Department of Labor's proposed rule remains pending. The adjustment of status policy memo issued in May 2026 remains in effect. The $100,000 fee was the most visible and immediately costly of these measures, but removing it does not restore the H-1B landscape to what it was a year ago.

Why This Does Not Change the Fundamental Case for EB-5

The ruling is genuinely good news for employers who were priced out of international hiring by the fee, and for foreign nationals whose sponsorship opportunities were constrained by it. That is worth acknowledging directly.

But the structural argument for EB-5 was never solely about the $100,000 fee. It was about the accumulated fragility of a pathway that depends entirely on employer willingness, Congressional authorization, executive policy decisions, and court outcomes, all of which can change, and all of which have changed multiple times in the past twelve months alone.

The fee being struck down by one judge does not mean the administration will stop pursuing policies designed to raise the cost and difficulty of H-1B sponsorship. It means one specific mechanism was found unconstitutional. The direction of travel for employment-based immigration policy has not changed with this ruling.

For H-1B professionals who have been building their long-term immigration strategy around EB-5 as a parallel path, the June 8 ruling is a positive development for the ecosystem, not a reason to reconsider the underlying logic.

What to Watch Next

The administration is likely to appeal. The question of whether the fee could be reinstated during that appeal process is one that courts will need to address. If the administration appeals and seeks a stay, the fee could theoretically return while litigation continues.

Employers who were holding back H-1B sponsorship decisions specifically because of the $100,000 fee may begin to move forward, which could expand the sponsorship pipeline for international candidates, particularly in healthcare, technology, and other sectors where the fee's impact was most acute.

The DOL proposed wage floor rule, which would raise H-1B minimum wages by up to 33% across all four wage levels, remains in its comment period and is a separate policy track entirely. The June 8 ruling has no direct bearing on that proposal.

Final Thoughts

The $100,000 fee being struck down is meaningful news. For thousands of employers and foreign nationals, it removes an immediate barrier that had materially changed what was possible. That is a real and positive development.

But the September 30, 2026 grandfathering deadline remains 4 months away. The January 2027 investment threshold increase remains projected. Reserved EB-5 categories remain current worldwide. And the immigration landscape for H-1B professionals remains more uncertain than it was 12 months ago, regardless of what happened in a Massachusetts courtroom on June 8.

The investors and professionals who are best positioned for the road ahead are not the ones who are recalibrating their strategy every time a court issues a ruling. They are the ones who identified a long-term path and are moving along it regardless of the headlines.

Because your Green Card Shouldn't Take a Lifetime