US District Judge Leo Sorokin (D-Mass., Obama appointee) issued a 42-page ruling Monday voiding Trump's $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. The suit was brought by 20 Democratic states led by California. Sorokin's holding: the fee is a tax, not a regulatory payment, and only Congress can impose taxes. The policy also violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. The White House said it will appeal. The original executive order was signed September 19, 2025; the fee took effect September 21 and ran for ~9 months. It was a 100x increase from the prior ~$1,000 standard H-1B filing fee. Late 2025, a different federal judge sided with Trump in a separate suit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Universities.

1. The Fee Was Unconstitutional Executive Overreach (20 states, Judge Sorokin, plaintiffs)

Only Congress can impose a tax. The $100K is a tax, not a fee. The president can't do this.

Sorokin's spine is the separation-of-powers argument. A $100,000 charge per visa application is a tax in legal substance regardless of what the executive order calls it. Tax authority sits with Congress alone. The executive branch can't unilaterally impose a 100x fee increase by proclamation.

The 20 Democratic states sued because the harm hit state institutions. The lawsuit named K-12 STEM teacher shortages, hospital staffing for medical professionals, and university research positions. That's what made the multi-state coalition viable. The fee wasn't immigration policy in the normal sense. It was a $100K-per-hire tax on hospitals, school districts, and universities, imposed without congressional authorization.

2. Trump Was Fixing Real Abuse (Trump admin, blue-collar advocacy)

One software company got 5K H-1Bs while announcing 15K layoffs. Amazon got 14K in six months. This is labor arbitrage with extra steps.

The proclamation's headline example describes a real pattern. "One software company approved for over 5,000 H-1B workers while announcing layoffs of more than 15,000 employees." Amazon/AWS received 14,000+ H-1B approvals in H1 2025 alone. Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, plus IT consulting majors Tata Consultancy Services and Cognizant rounded out the top recipients. The specialty-occupation pathway has been used at scale by employers laying off Americans in similar roles.

The $100K fee makes companies prove the hire is worth the cost differential. It's a price signal that ends the labor-arbitrage misuse. If the position genuinely requires a specialty hire, $100K is small change. If it doesn't, the company hires an American. Whether that's constitutionally a tax or a fee is the legal question Sorokin answered against the administration, but the underlying policy intent sits with Congress now if the appeal fails.

3. The Split-Rulings Problem Is the Story (legal, structural)

One judge said Trump can do this. Another judge says he can't. The Supreme Court will decide.

Late 2025 a different federal judge sided with the administration. That ruling, in a separate U.S. Chamber of Commerce + Association of American Universities suit: Trump was within his statutory authority. The Chamber appealed and an appeals court heard the bid to revive in March 2026. Now Sorokin ruled the opposite way for the 20-state suit. Two conflicting district court holdings on the same executive order.

The practical disruption already happened. Nine months of fee-in-effect produced panic among Indian and Chinese tech workers, hiring freezes at startups, university scrambling for fall 2025 academic appointments, and a broad shift toward remote-hire workarounds in Canada and India. The Sorokin ruling restores the status quo only as long as the appeal doesn't reverse it.

Where This Lands

A federal judge says the fee is a tax and only Congress can impose taxes. Others say big companies using H-1B for labor arbitrage while laying off Americans is the real problem, and the price-signal fix is defensible even if the legal mechanism gets reversed. Two judges have now ruled in opposite directions on the same executive order, the 9 months of disruption are baked in, and the Supreme Court question is when, not if.

Sources