The White House has vowed to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump's controversial $100,000 H-1B visa fee, arguing that the administration acted within its legal authority to reform what it describes as an abused immigration programme.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said President Trump had clear authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when deemed necessary for America's interests.
"The H-1B programme has been abused for decades, and President Trump finally took action to fix it," Rogers said, expressing confidence that the policy would ultimately be reinstated on appeal.
The response came after US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Massachusetts invalidated the fee and vacated the policy nationwide, ruling that the administration had exceeded its authority by effectively imposing a tax without congressional approval.
In a 42-page decision, Sorokin concluded that the $100,000 charge on new H-1B visa petitions amounted to an unauthorised tax rather than a lawful immigration restriction.
"The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress," Sorokin wrote. "There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions."
The judge rejected the administration's argument that broad presidential powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act allowed the fee. While acknowledging that the executive branch enjoys significant discretion in immigration matters, Sorokin stressed that such powers are not unlimited and cannot override constitutional boundaries or Congress's exclusive authority over taxation.
A key issue in the ruling was whether the fee could be treated as an immigration restriction. Sorokin dismissed that interpretation, stating that "taxes are not restrictions" and noting that the immigration laws cited by the administration contain no explicit language authorising the President to impose new taxes.
The court also found that federal agencies responsible for implementing the policy failed to follow required rulemaking procedures and did not adequately justify the dramatic increase in costs imposed on employers seeking to hire foreign workers through the H-1B programme.
At the conclusion of the ruling, Sorokin declared the policy unlawful and ordered it vacated in its entirety across the United States.
The fee had been introduced through a presidential proclamation signed by Trump in September 2025 as part of a broader effort to tighten oversight of the H-1B visa programme, widely used by technology companies and other employers to hire highly skilled foreign workers.
The White House has not specified when it will file an appeal, but administration officials indicated they will continue defending the measure. The case is expected to have implications beyond the H-1B programme, as it addresses the limits of presidential authority in immigration policy and reinforces Congress's constitutional role in taxation.
