Primary keywords: US judge rules USD 100,000 H-1B fee unlawful and beyond executive authority in Boston

A US federal judge in Boston struck down a proposed $100,000 charge on new H-1B visa applications. The ruling dealt a blow to immigration measures backed by US President Donald Trump. Judge Leo Sorokin said the fee was unlawful and beyond executive authority. The Trump administration said it planned to appeal the decision.

The decision was viewed as relief for US employers, universities, and skilled foreign workers. Indians were the largest group affected, as Indian nationals held most H-1B visas. The judgment also renewed debate on how far any administration could go on visa rules. It set limits on major fee changes without Congress.

The H-1B visa programme let US employers hire foreign professionals for specialised roles. Technology firms used it often, along with healthcare providers and research bodies. Under the Trump-era measure, sponsors of a new H-1B worker faced an added $100,000 per application. Critics said the aim was to deter hiring from abroad.

Supporters argued the fee would protect jobs for American workers. Many businesses warned it would block hiring by cost alone. Smaller firms, start-ups, and universities said the amount was too high to absorb. They feared projects would slow or move elsewhere if staffing became harder.

Judge Sorokin ruled the administration lacked legal authority to set such a large fee. The court said Congress had to approve charges of that size. Federal agencies could not create a barrier of $100,000 through executive action alone. The ruling still allowed visa regulation, but only within lawful limits.

H-1B visa impact: Why Indians mattered most

US government data over recent years showed Indian nationals received the vast majority of approved H-1B visas. Many worked in software development, artificial intelligence, engineering, finance, and healthcare. Had the fee stayed, Indian IT firms and multinationals employing Indians faced steep added costs. That could have reduced hiring and narrowed US options.

The likely effects were tied to budgets and hiring plans across sectors. The table lists key fields mentioned in the debate.

The legal fight continued, as the Trump administration indicated it would challenge the ruling in a higher court. A successful appeal could revive the fee. If the ruling stood, it would reinforce that Congress had to approve major immigration fee shifts. For now, employers and skilled workers, including Indians, faced fewer immediate barriers.