Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and a coalition of 32 states and the District of Columbia have secured a major court victory after a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the administration lacked authority to impose the charge without congressional approval.
The decision, issued Monday by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, vacates the policy and removes what state officials described as a significant barrier to recruiting highly skilled workers for public agencies, universities, colleges and health care systems. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the states and found the administration’s implementation of the fee exceeded its authority.
“This win helps keep our state at the forefront of highly specialized research that drives our world’s most dynamic industries,” Brown said. “Unchecked, this illegal tax would have massively increased costs for Washington state agencies, public universities, and public colleges.”
The lawsuit challenged a September 2025 presidential proclamation that imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on new H-1B visa petitions. Prior to the policy, employers typically paid between $960 and $7,595 in regulatory and statutory fees when filing H-1B applications. The additional fee represented a dramatic increase in hiring costs for organizations that rely on highly skilled international workers.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring advanced knowledge and education. H-1B workers fill critical roles across a range of industries, including medicine, research, engineering, cybersecurity, higher education and technology.
Washington officials argued that the fee threatened the state’s ability to recruit and retain workers in sectors already facing labor shortages.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, nearly 500 H-1B visa holders work across more than 30 Washington state agencies, public universities and public colleges. Many institutions had stopped filing new H-1B petitions after the fee took effect because they could not absorb the additional cost.
State officials warned that if the fee had remained in place, universities and colleges could have struggled to fill key faculty, research and technical positions, potentially affecting programs in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and medicine.
The states also argued that the policy could worsen existing shortages in education and health care. In its ruling, the court noted that the plaintiff states presented evidence showing the fee would impede their ability to hire educators, support academic research and recruit medical professionals, creating broader impacts on public services.
Brown joined the multistate lawsuit in December 2025, arguing that the administration had created an unlawful financial barrier that weakened state institutions and disrupted essential services.
The court ultimately agreed that the federal government lacked authority to impose the fee. Judge Leo T. Sorokin concluded that the $100,000 payment functioned as a tax and that Congress had not delegated the power to impose such a tax through federal immigration law. The ruling found that the policy unlawfully intruded on Congress’ constitutional authority over taxation.
The decision is expected to have significant implications for public institutions across Washington that rely on specialized international talent to support research, education and health care operations.
Nationwide, H-1B workers and their dependents contribute an estimated $86 billion annually to the U.S. economy while paying approximately $35 billion in federal and payroll taxes and another $11 billion in state and local taxes, according to the Attorney General’s Office.
The case was brought by Washington and a bipartisan coalition of states after they declined to join a separate federal settlement they argued did not go far enough to address the policy’s impact. The lawsuit will now move forward to determine any additional remedies following the court’s decision.
