AG Brown Announces Court Strike Down of Trump Administration’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Tax

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown announced a significant legal victory as a federal court has finalized a ruling against the Trump administration’s policy that imposed a substantial $100,000 tax on new H-1B visa petitions. The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts declared this policy unlawful and has vacated it, a decision that Attorney General Brown stated is crucial for ensuring essential services in Maryland and across the nation. The H-1B visa program is designed to allow U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers for specialized roles, addressing labor shortages in critical sectors like education, healthcare, and research.

According to Brown, the now-invalidated policy created a significant financial hurdle for employers seeking to fill these vital positions. This barrier not only weakened the economy but also disrupted the delivery of essential public services, particularly impacting government and public sector employers who often rely on the program to recruit specialized talent. Attorney General Brown was part of a multistate coalition that initiated legal action against the policy late last year, arguing that it was an unlawful imposition by the federal government.

The H-1B visa program facilitates the employment of highly skilled foreign professionals in occupations requiring at least a bachelor’s degree. Employers seeking to hire under this program must obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor, confirming that such employment will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of American workers. A cap is placed on the number of H-1B visas available annually, with a specific exemption for individuals holding a master’s degree or higher. Notably, many government and non-profit research organizations are exempt from this cap to ensure they can fulfill their public service missions.

Since its establishment, the H-1B visa program has undergone numerous congressional adjustments aimed at balancing employers’ needs with the protection of American workers. While Congress has strengthened enforcement measures, increased penalties, and legislated on petition fees to prevent program misuse, the program has generally been viewed as beneficial to the United States. It has proven particularly vital for state and local governments facing critical worker shortages in fields such as education and healthcare, enabling them to meet the fundamental needs of their residents. The economic contribution of H-1B workers and their dependents is substantial, accounting for billions annually in economic activity and tax revenue at federal, state, and local levels.

The contentious $100,000 tax was introduced via a presidential proclamation on September 19, 2025, a move characterized by the Attorney General’s office as undermining the core purpose of the H-1B visa program. This policy was intended to address severe labor shortages and was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security through written directives, affecting any H-1B petition filed after September 21, 2025. The policy also granted the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion in determining which petitions would be subject to the fee or any exemption, raising concerns about potential selective enforcement against employers not favored by the administration. The ruling that this payment was an unlawful tax and that the President lacked the authority to impose it has been hailed as a victory for states like Maryland, preventing potential diminishment in the quality of education, healthcare, and other essential services.

The lawsuit, filed on December 12, 2025, by Attorney General Brown and the coalition, contended that the Trump administration’s H-1B visa tax violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution. Following the initial complaint, the coalition of attorneys general moved for a summary judgment, while the federal defendants sought to dismiss the case and filed their own summary judgment motion. The court’s decision to grant in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and vacate the implementing policies marks a significant resolution, confirming the illegality of the substantial fee.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General.

Video Spotlight