A federal courtroom in Boston became the latest battleground over the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, as a judge questioned whether the president’s authority to regulate entry into the United States stretches far enough to justify a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications.
During a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin repeatedly challenged government lawyers to explain the legal foundation for the fee, which was announced last September and multiplied the cost of obtaining an H-1B visa by an extraordinary margin.
The lawsuit, brought by 20 Democratic-led states, argues that the measure is not a routine immigration regulation but an unlawful tax imposed without congressional approval.
The H-1B program, widely used by technology companies, healthcare providers and other employers seeking highly skilled foreign talent, issues 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees. Before the new policy, employers generally paid several thousand dollars in filing and processing fees. Under Trump’s directive, the cost jumped to $100,000 per visa.
Government attorney Tiberius Davis defended the measure, arguing that federal immigration law grants the president broad authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when their admission is deemed contrary to U.S. interests. According to Davis, the steep fee is working exactly as intended by discouraging companies from relying on overseas workers and encouraging them to recruit and train Americans instead.
Court filings indicate the policy has sharply reduced demand. By mid-February, federal immigration authorities had reportedly received only 85 payments under the new fee structure.
Judge Sorokin acknowledged that the statute cited by the administration contains expansive language. However, he questioned whether the government’s interpretation effectively places no meaningful limits on presidential power.
To test the boundaries of that argument, the judge posed a series of hypothetical scenarios, asking whether the same legal theory could permit a president to impose enormous fees on Americans seeking to bring foreign spouses into the country or require companies hiring foreign workers to surrender a portion of their ownership to the government.
Davis responded that the authority granted by Congress is exceptionally broad and could potentially support a wide range of measures aimed at limiting entry by non-citizens.
The administration urged the court to follow the reasoning of another federal judge in Washington, D.C., who recently upheld the H-1B fee in a separate challenge brought by a major business organization.
Lawyers representing the states took a sharply different view. James Richardson, arguing on behalf of California, contended that the administration had effectively created a new tax disguised as an immigration fee. He maintained that Congress alone possesses taxing authority and never clearly delegated such power through immigration statutes.
Richardson also pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down several Trump-era tariffs, arguing that the decision reinforced the principle that sweeping revenue-raising measures require unmistakable authorization from Congress.
“Congress does not delegate a tax authority in ambiguous language,” Richardson told the court.
Judge Sorokin did not immediately rule from the bench. His eventual decision could determine not only the future of the $100,000 H-1B fee but also how far presidential immigration powers can extend when economic barriers are used to shape who enters the United States.
