Court Decision Brings Temporary Clarity on H-1B Fees
Among the many surprising immigration news developments over the past year and a half, the administration’s proposal to impose a $100,000 fee on many H-1B applicants stood out. While not all international students plan to stay in the United States long-term, the prospect of post-graduation employment is a crucial factor in their decision to study here. This proposal caused significant confusion and raised pressing questions about affordability and access for students, families, universities, and employers alike.
This week, a federal court ruled against the policy, determining that the fee in question was more akin to a tax than a standard administrative fee, thereby exceeding the authority of the Executive Branch. While the decision is expected to be appealed, it provides temporary clarity on the matter. We will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as new developments emerge.
"U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states and struck down the visa policy, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations."
"The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress," Sorokin wrote.
Federal judge strikes down Trump administration policy freezing immigration proceedings from 39 countries
In another legal setback for the administration, a federal judge has overturned a policy that withheld final decisions on various immigration applications—including those for asylum, work permits, green cards, and US citizenship—from individuals in countries affected by the travel ban. For many applicants left in limbo, this ruling could advance their long-delayed cases and offer much-needed clarity on their future.
“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”
CALL TO ACTION:
White House Proposal Signals Major Shift for US Research Enterprise
For those following the Administration’s latest proposal, an opportunity to engage has arrived. This new policy seeks to implement oversight mechanisms that require federal agencies to align all discretionary awards with current administration policies and executive orders. Furthermore, the proposed rule mandates that federal agencies designate “senior appointees” to review both new and existing research grants. This change signals a potential shift away from the traditional peer-review model, moving toward a system where political considerations could influence funding decisions.
"This is likely a historic document because this is the Trump administration trying to implement a lot of the things that they’ve been trying to do within the first year and a half around the federal science agencies," Spreitzer said.
Comments are due July 13; institutions are encouraged to respond.