Washington: A US federal judge on June 8, Monday (local time) blocked a proposal by President Donald Trump to impose a USD 100,000 fee on employers seeking to hire foreign workers for specialised roles under the H-1B visa programme. US District Judge Richard Stearns ruled that the President’s proposed payments for H-1B visa applications introduced through a September 2025 proclamation and swiftly implemented by the US State Department and the US Department of Homeland Security violated the principle of separation of powers. The judgement is deemed as a major backlash against Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” policy and retreat for his aggressive transactionalism.
The latest ruling came six months after a federal judge in Washington D.C. had ruled in favour of the Trump administration in a similar case filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, holding that Congress had given the President authority to impose the $100,000 fee. However, Judge Howell’s decision in that earlier case was issued before the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling in February 2026. This verdict on tariffs infact helped as a guidefor the latest Stearns’ judgment on H-1B visa fees.
What is H-1B visa & how US Congress regulates it?
The H-1B visa program allows employers to petition for high-skilled foreign workers to temporarily fill positions in speciality occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. In petitioning for an H-1B worker, the employer must submit an application, certified by the US Department of Labour, that employment of the H-1B worker will not negatively affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed US workers.
The US Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each year for most private employers, with the current cap set at 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with a master’s degree or higher. Since its inception, the H-1B visa program has been continually tailored by Congress to carry out its purpose of meeting employers’ labor needs, while protecting the interests of American workers to ensure that they are not wrongfully displaced.
Congress has repeatedly enhanced enforcement, increased penalties, and legislated on fees for H-1B petitions to prevent misuse of the program. Congress has also adapted the program to ensure that it is especially beneficial to many government and non-profit organizations in fulfilling their public service missions, exempting them from the 65,000-person cap.
Despite the continous regulation of the H-1B visa protocols by the US Congress, in September 2025, Trump issued a proclamation imposing an unprecedented USD 100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa, by making it harder to address severe labour shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare, ultimately worsening the staffing crisis.
As implemented by DHS through a series of written documents, the policy affects any application filed after September 21, 2025 and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or for an exemption, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration.
US lawmakers & Republicans welcome verdict on H-1B visas
A chorus of US lawmakers from across the political spectrum has come out in support of a federal court order dismantling a proposed USD 100,000 H-1B visa application fee, even as the White House prepares to challenge the judicial setback in the appeals court.
Breaking ranks with the executive branch, several Republican lawmakers backed the decision by shifting the spotlight away from the information technology sector, which heavily utilises this visa category and focusing instead on how the massive financial penalty would cripple healthcare systems and educational institutions in remote regions.
These conservative representatives pointed out that employers in rural areas depend heavily on international professionals to fill severe staffing voids. Stressing the severe local impact, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska emphasised that the issue transcended partisan politics in her state. She pointed out that the judicial intervention arrived at a pivotal juncture as academic institutions actively finalise their faculty rosters for the upcoming school term. Senator Murkowski stated, “Many school districts in rural and remote parts of the state rely on the H-1B visa programme to bring quality teachers to their communities”.
Democratic Congressman Don Beyer praised the judgment, warning that the steep executive fee would have slammed healthcare facilities which is already pushed to the brink by severe personnel deficits with unsustainable operational costs. Echoing this sentiment from across the aisle, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler also threw his weight behind the judicial freeze. He highlighted his own ongoing, cross-party legislative efforts to shield medical personnel from the financial burden.
Congressman Lawler noted, “I have been working to exempt healthcare workers from this fee that only exacerbates the current staffing shortages in healthcare. That’s why I introduced the bipartisan H-1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act. While we continue to push this legislation through Congress, this ruling is welcome news”.
Further criticising the administration’s economic logic, Congressman Sanford D. Bishop Jr. cautioned that the premium pricing would effectively slam the door on global talent, hurting domestic growth. Congressman Bishop argued, “The USD 100,000 fee for employers’ H-1B applications would have discouraged the best and the brightest from coming to America and helping our economy grow and innovate”.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta remarked that the executive fiscal policy directly undermined the nation’s capacity to import specialised professionals for sectors struggling with systemic labour deficits.
Bonta stated, “This tax was an attack on America’s ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs”.
Validating the multi-state legal push, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport expressed an identical view, noting that the judiciary clearly agreed that the executive branch had completely overreached its mandate by attempting to levy the financial requirement on H-1B petitioners.
However, unmoved by the legislative backlash, the White House strongly defended the executive measure and signalled immediate plans to get the ruling overturned. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers argued, “The H-1B programme has been abused for decades and President Trump finally took action to fix it”.
Expressing absolute confidence in a legal reversal, Rogers added, “A federal judge in Washington already upheld a nearly identical order and the administration is confident this order will be reversed on appeal”. This highly publicised judicial verdict represents a major blow to the Trump administration’s broader strategy aimed at restricting employment-driven immigration channels and creating steep hurdles for US employers trying to onboard international professionals.
(With Inputs from ANI)
