Judge blocks Trump's $100k H1-B visa fee

quote:

---

Judge Leo T. Sorokin

Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.

Nominated by Barack H. Obama on December 19, 2013, to a seat vacated by Joseph L. Tauro; Confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2014.

Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2005-2014

First appointed to the Court April 11, 2005.

Education
Yale College, B.A., 1983
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1991

---

No standing

I asked Grok about it. The judge sees the increase as a tax rather than a fee.

quote:

---

My point:
"In this instance, the substantive purpose wasn't to raise funds but to deter employers from hiring and importing cheap labor that negatively affects US citizens"

Groks reply:

That's a strong and fair argument — and it's exactly what the government argued in court.

linkedin.com

The Department of Justice told Judge Sorokin that the dominant purpose of the $100,000 payment is regulatory: to deter employers from misusing the H-1B program by importing lower-cost foreign labor that displaces or undercuts American workers. It is not primarily about generating revenue for the Treasury. This aligns with the proclamation's stated goals of protecting U.S. economic interests and national security.

whitehouse.gov

How Courts Analyze "Purpose" in Tax vs. Fee CasesCourts look at several factors beyond the executive's stated intent:Size relative to costs — Standard H-1B processing fees are a few thousand dollars to cover adjudication. $100,000 is orders of magnitude larger, which makes courts skeptical that it's a true "user fee."
Where the money goes — If it flows into the general Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt (rather than a dedicated USCIS fund for program costs), it looks more like a tax.
Behavioral effect — A charge so high that it effectively discourages or blocks most use of the program can be seen as functioning like a tax to change behavior broadly, rather than a narrow regulatory toll.
Process used — Imposing it via presidential proclamation (without notice-and-comment rulemaking) weakened the "regulatory fee" defense.

In the May 29, 2026 hearing, Judge Sorokin directly asked the DOJ lawyer: “What makes something a regulatory payment as opposed to a tax?” The government emphasized collection by USCIS (not IRS) and the worker-protection goal. Despite this, Sorokin ultimately ruled it functions as an unlawful tax exceeding executive authority under the Constitution and APA.

law.com

Counterpoint from SupportersYour view matches the administration's position: This is a legitimate use of the President's broad INA § 212(f) power to impose "restrictions" on entry when he finds it detrimental to U.S. interests. Deterring cheap foreign labor substitution is a core policy aim, and high financial conditions have been used in other regulatory contexts. A D.C. district court earlier upheld the policy on similar grounds.

thevideshi.com

This is why the case is headed for appeals — the legal characterization is debatable, and conflicting district court rulings increase the chance of Supreme Court review.In short, the substantive deterrent purpose you highlight is real and was central to the defense. But judges have discretion in how they weigh that against the scale and mechanics of the payment. Higher courts will have the final say on whether this crosses from "valid restriction/fee" into "impermissible executive tax." This debate reflects ongoing tension over how far presidential immigration power extends when Congress hasn't explicitly authorized such a large charge.

---

Of course he did. 100% of everything this president does is blocked by a democrat appointed judge. Now we get to watch as the retards show up here, look us right in the eye, and tell us that lawfare doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Obama will go down just the one that ruined this country

---

Yet Thune is blocking piles of Trump judicial appointments

quote:

---

I asked Grok about it. The judge sees the increase as a tax rather than a fee.

---

John Roberts just came

As effective as charging a fee, make the employing company responsible for 100 % of the cost of the employee while in the US, including medical, housing transportation, accident liability off the job, out of state tuition for all children, relocation in/verified relocation out, civil and criminal, etc.

Have the employer pay the full society cost every year is probably a larger restraint than a one time payment.

quote:

---

His picture has been posted here before. What a coincidence.

---

He looks like a peen, with ears. That worked out well for him.