MARYLAND- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown responded to a federal court ruling that vacated a Trump administration policy requiring a $100,000 payment on new H-1B visa petitions.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the payment constituted a tax and found that the president lacked authority to impose it. The court vacated the policies used to implement the requirement.
Brown joined a multistate coalition that filed a lawsuit in December 2025 challenging the policy. The coalition argued the measure violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution.
“Maryland’s schools, hospitals, and universities depend on highly skilled professionals from around the world to keep their doors open and their communities served,” Brown said. “This ruling makes clear that the federal government cannot impose unlawful financial barriers that make it harder to recruit the teachers, doctors, researchers, nurses, and other essential workers Marylanders rely on every day.”
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers for specialty occupations that generally require at least a bachelor’s degree. Those positions can include teachers, physicians, nurses, researchers and other professionals.
According to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, Congress established annual limits on most private-sector H-1B visas, currently set at 65,000, with an additional 20,000 visas available for workers who hold a master’s degree or higher. Certain government entities and nonprofit research organizations are exempt from those caps.
The policy stemmed from a Sept. 19, 2025, presidential proclamation that required employers filing new H-1B petitions to pay $100,000. The requirement took effect for applications submitted after Sept. 21, 2025.
In their lawsuit, Brown and other attorneys general argued the payment would affect employers and public institutions seeking to recruit workers in fields such as education and health care.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts federal court determined that the payment functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory fee and concluded that the executive branch lacked authority to impose it without congressional approval.
