The judges chose not to suspend the earlier ruling that prevented the charge from taking effect while the government pursues an appeal. The panel determined the administration had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of winning its argument that the president possessed the authority to enact such a levy.
Unveiled in September 2025, the fee was part of a broader immigration crackdown. It would have applied to new H-1B visas. The H-1B program provides roughly 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 set aside for individuals holding advanced degrees.
"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. The judge determined that taxing power belongs to Congress, not the president.
Get the market news that matters in a five-minute read with Market Briefs, our free daily newsletter
To put the size of that charge in perspective, typical visa-related costs for employers before this new fee ranged from approximately $2,000 to $5,000. Documents submitted to the court indicate that the massive price hike dramatically lowered demand. By mid-February, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had received very few remittances of the new charge.
American firms use the H-1B visa program to bring in specialized foreign workers for skilled positions, and it is a common tool for technology companies seeking global expertise. The lower court agreed, noting that the fee's primary purpose was to raise revenue - a core function of Congress.
The lower court judge, Sorokin, had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fee, ruling that regardless of its label, the payment functioned as a tax. The appeals panel's refusal to halt that injunction signals that the administration faces an uphill battle in convincing the courts that the president has the authority to impose such a charge. If the fee had taken effect, it would have more than doubled the typical cost of hiring an H-1B worker, a burden many employers said would force them to cancel visa sponsorships. The temporary block has already led some companies to resume processing visas for workers whose offers were rescinded.
The lower court's block stays in place while the administration appeals. Brian Hunt, who works as an immigration policy compliance attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, stated, "In light of the 100k fee, there are some workers who were about to lose their job offer but can now get a visa after all."
The administration may still appeal the underlying decision, and the White House had not provided an immediate comment when asked. For now, the block remains in effect.
Join Market Briefs, our free daily newsletter, for a quick daily rundown of the markets
