BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday vacated President Trump's $100,000 fee on employer applications for H-1B visas, ruling the charge an unlawful tax that Congress never authorized and handing the administration its latest courtroom setback over executive authority.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin reopens a hiring channel that U.S. technology, health-care and education employers had largely frozen since Trump imposed the fee by proclamation last September. Before that order, H-1B application fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. Walmart and other large employers said they would pause participation after the surcharge took effect, and only 85 of the $100,000 payments had been collected as of Feb. 15, the administration disclosed in a March court filing.

What the judge ruled

Sorokin, sitting in U.S. District Court in Boston, found that the policy violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. He sided with 20 states, led by Democratic attorneys general, that sued in December to block the fee.

"Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called," Sorokin wrote, concluding that Congress had not delegated taxing power to the executive branch.

The judge anchored that conclusion in the Supreme Court's February decision striking down Trump's reciprocal tariffs, in which the high court held that tariffs assessed by the Department of Homeland Security "amount to taxes for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing Clause." The Homeland Security Department is a defendant in the H-1B case.

The program at stake

The H-1B program, created in 1990, lets U.S. employers sponsor nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations for up to six years. It is capped at 65,000 visas a year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for workers holding a master's degree or doctorate from a U.S. institution.

Trump's September proclamation argued that the program had been misused and was undermining U.S. economic and national security through what he called the "large-scale replacement of American workers." The administration defended the fee in court as an exercise of the president's statutory power to restrict entry of foreigners deemed detrimental to U.S. interests, the same authority invoked during the pandemic.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state joined the suit, said the ruling protected a workforce embedded in essential services. "Every day, thousands of people with H-1B visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers, and other skilled workers," James said. "Today a court put an end to this administration's illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible."

Trump's response

The Trump administration said it would appeal. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that Trump "has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America's best interests, and that is exactly what he did," and that "a federal judge in Washington already upheld a nearly identical order, and the Administration is confident this order will be reversed on appeal."

Asked by a reporter in New York whether he would seek congressional approval for the fee, Trump criticized the bench. "These federal judges are really giving us a hard time," he said. "It's really crazy what's going on with the court system. They're hurting our country very badly." Federal courts have also recently ordered the removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center and halted a Justice Department "Anti-Weaponization" fund tied to a lawsuit he filed against the IRS.

The administration's case

The Washington Examiner noted that Sorokin was appointed by former President Barack Obama and called the ruling a blow to the White House's immigration agenda. Administration lawyers had argued federal immigration law lets the executive attach a financial penalty to entry, while the Constitution assigns Congress the power to set immigration levels. Sorokin rejected that framing, ruling the $100,000 charge functioned as a tax, not a penalty, and required congressional action the administration never sought.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a separate challenge in October. The appeal now heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.