Daijiworld Media Network - Washington

Washington, Jun 9: A federal court in the United States has invalidated the Trump administration’s controversial requirement that employers pay $100,000 for certain H-1B visa petitions, ruling that the executive branch lacked the constitutional authority to impose such a charge without approval from Congress.

In a detailed 42-page judgment, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin concluded that the policy functioned as a tax rather than an immigration restriction and therefore exceeded the powers granted to the President under federal law.

The court held that Congress alone possesses the authority to create and impose taxes unless it explicitly delegates that power. According to the ruling, no provision within existing immigration statutes authorised the administration to introduce a new fee of this magnitude on H-1B applications.

The Trump administration had defended the measure by arguing that it fell within the President’s broad authority to regulate the entry of foreign nationals into the country. However, Judge Sorokin rejected that interpretation, stating that the immigration laws cited by the government did not grant the executive branch the power to levy taxes.

The ruling stressed that although presidents enjoy considerable discretion in immigration matters, that authority remains subject to constitutional and statutory limits. The court noted that executive actions cannot override powers specifically reserved for Congress under the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Sorokin also dismissed the administration’s argument that the $100,000 payment could be considered an immigration-related restriction rather than a tax. The decision emphasised that restrictions on entry and the power to impose taxes are legally distinct concepts and cannot be treated as interchangeable.

A substantial portion of the judgment focused on constitutional principles governing taxation. The court observed that while Congress may delegate certain powers to federal agencies, such delegation must be clearly expressed in legislation. In this case, the statutes referenced by the government authorised restrictions, regulations and limitations concerning immigration but contained no language permitting the creation of a new tax.

The court further found that the federal agencies responsible for implementing the policy had exceeded their statutory authority and failed to comply with required administrative procedures. Officials were criticised for not providing adequate justification for the dramatic increase in costs imposed on employers seeking to hire skilled foreign workers through the H-1B programme.

As a result, the court declared the policy unlawful and ordered it to be vacated nationwide, effectively nullifying the requirement across the United States.

Legal observers believe the ruling could have implications beyond the H-1B visa programme, as it reinforces constitutional limits on executive power and reaffirms Congress’s exclusive role in matters of taxation. The decision is expected to influence future legal debates over the scope of presidential authority in immigration policy and administrative rulemaking.