美国联邦法官废除特朗普政府10万美元H-1B签证费政策Federal Judge Voids Trump Administration's $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

美国波士顿联邦地区法院法官利奥·索罗金于周一做出裁决，宣布废除特朗普政府针对高技术外国工人征收的10万美元H-1B签证申请费政策。索罗金法官判定该项收费政策违法，并予以全面撤销。此项裁决直接否定了特朗普政府此前为限制该签证项目而实施的收费新规。

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston ruled on Monday to invalidate and vacate the Trump administration's policy that imposed a $100,000 application fee on employers seeking new H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers. The federal judge declared the six-figure payment requirement unlawful, delivering a major setback to the administration's efforts to restrict the visa program.

在判决中，索罗金法官明确指出，行政部门无权单方面对申请H-1B签证的雇主施加如此高额的经济要求。该判决不仅宣布这一收费政策无效，还一并废除了用于执行和实施该10万美元费用的相关机构备忘录、指导文件、网站说明、常见问题解答（FAQ）以及收费标准表，从而在行政执行层面彻底终止了该政策的效力。

In his ruling, Judge Sorokin voided the policy in its entirety. The decision officially invalidated not only the core fee requirement itself, but also the accompanying agency memoranda, guidance documents, website instructions, frequently asked questions, and fee schedules that federal agencies had established to implement and enforce the $100,000 H-1B visa fee.

索罗金法官在长达42页的判决书中详细阐述了其法律逻辑，指出无论这项10万美元的付款被称为什么，其核心实质和实际应用都表明它是一种税收。根据美国宪法，只有国会拥有征税的宪法权力，而行政部门在没有国会明确授权的情况下，无权单方面对H-1B签证申请施加此类税收负担。因此，该政策不仅超越了行政职权，也违反了规范联邦机构制定和发布法规的《行政程序法》。

In his 42-page decision, Judge Sorokin detailed the legal reasoning behind the ruling, stating that the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called. Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to impose taxes, and the executive branch lacks the authority to unilaterally levy such financial burdens on H-1B visa petitions without a specific delegation of power from lawmakers.

判决书明确指出，没有任何法定权力授权特朗普政府对H-1B申请实施这项10万美元的税收。索罗金法官裁定，总统无权也未获得授权来强行改变联邦移民政策以增设此类收费。由于国会从未向行政部门授予此类征税权力，该政策在宪法和联邦行政法层面均被判定为违法，从而失去了继续执行的法律依据。

The judge wrote that there are no statutory powers authorizing the Trump administration to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions, concluding that the president had no power or delegated authority to impose such a requirement. By unilaterally enacting this massive fee, the administration exceeded its constitutional authority and violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which strictly governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

这项诉讼最初于2025年12月提起，由加利福尼亚州牵头，联合了20个主要由民主党总检察长组成的州。起诉书将美国国土安全部部长马克韦恩·马林及其他负责执行该政策的联邦机构列为被告。各州在诉讼中指出，在特朗普政府于2025年9月宣布这一新规之前，利用H-1B签证项目来填补医生和教师等关键岗位空缺就已经面临诸多困难。10万美元的收费标准使原有的申请费用暴涨了20至50倍，给各州的人才引进带来了巨大的阻碍。

The lawsuit challenging the policy was filed in December 2025 by a coalition of 20 states led by California and Democratic state attorneys general. The legal action named Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and several other federal agencies responsible for implementing the policy as defendants. The states argued that utilizing the H-1B program to fill critical vacancies for much-needed professionals was already difficult before the administration announced the fee in September 2025. The $100,000 requirement represented a dramatic 20-to-50 fold increase over existing rates.

纽约州总检察长詹姆斯表示，每天都有数以千计的H-1B签证持有者作为医生、教师和其他技术人员为纽约市民服务。该政策的取消为依赖高技术外国人才的雇主缓解了巨大的财务障碍。此前，这一高昂的费用对医院、学校和科技公司等雇主构成了沉重的财务负担，严重限制了这些机构聘用急需的专业人才，同时也阻碍了医疗、教育和科技行业通过这一合法移民渠道引进关键员工。

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state was part of the coalition, noted that thousands of H-1B visa holders serve as doctors, teachers, and other skilled workers. By striking down the fee, the court removed a massive financial barrier for employers. The six-figure charge had threatened to narrow a major pathway for legal immigration, creating severe financial obstacles for hospitals, schools, and technology companies that rely on the program to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals in specialized fields.

针对波士顿联邦地区法院的判决，美国国土安全部在声明中予以强烈谴责，称该裁决是“公然的司法干预主义”。国土安全部坚决为特朗普政府的移民改革举措进行辩护，强调这些改革政策旨在防止外国工人夺走美国人的工作岗位。政府官员认为，司法部门不应干涉行政部门为保护国内劳动力市场和规范移民体系所做出的政策努力。

The Department of Homeland Security strongly condemned the federal court's decision, labeling Judge Sorokin's ruling as "blatant judicial activism" in an official statement. In defense of the Trump administration's broader immigration reforms, the department maintained that the high-fee policy was a necessary measure designed to prevent foreign workers from taking jobs away from American citizens. Administration officials argued that the judicial intervention improperly disrupted executive efforts to protect the domestic workforce.

面对这一重大的法律挫折，特朗普政府并未打算妥协，并计划对索罗金法官的裁决提出上诉。尽管此前曾有联邦法院做出过支持该项收费政策的裁决，但此次波士顿法院的判决直接推翻了这一高额收费。随着特朗普政府准备将本案递交至上诉法院，这场围绕高技术外国工人签证费用以及行政自由裁量权边界的法律斗争预计仍将继续进行。

Following this significant legal setback, the Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling to defend its regulatory authority. Although an earlier federal court decision had upheld the fee hike, Judge Sorokin's ruling struck down the policy entirely. The administration's upcoming appeal is set to prolong the legal battle over the boundaries of executive power and the financial requirements imposed on employers seeking H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign professionals.