The proposed H-1B visa fee would have significantly increased costs for employers and applicants. The court ruling is expected to benefit Indian professionals, who account for nearly 70% of approved H-1B work visas.

A United States federal court has struck down former President Donald Trump’s proposal to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, delivering a significant legal setback to the administration’s immigration agenda and offering relief to thousands of Indian professionals seeking employment opportunities in the country.

In a ruling issued on Monday, US District Judge Leo Sorokin held that the President did not possess the legal authority to introduce such a fee without approval from Congress. The decision effectively blocks a measure that would have dramatically increased the cost of hiring foreign skilled workers under the H-1B visa programme.

Court Questions Presidential Authority

In his 42-page judgment, Judge Sorokin concluded that the proposed fee amounted to a tax rather than a routine administrative charge. Under the US Constitution, the power to levy taxes rests with Congress unless lawmakers specifically delegate such authority.

The court found no provision in existing immigration laws that would allow the executive branch to unilaterally impose a fee of this magnitude on H-1B petitions.

“The President had no power or delegated authority to impose a tax on H-1B petitions,” the judge stated while rejecting the administration’s interpretation of federal immigration statutes.

The ruling reinforces the limits of presidential authority in matters involving taxation and immigration policy, areas where congressional approval remains central.

Legal Challenge by States

The lawsuit was filed in December by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The states argued that the administration had exceeded its powers by creating a substantial financial burden on employers and foreign workers without legislative backing.

According to court filings, the states contended that immigration policy changes of such scale require congressional action rather than executive orders or administrative directives.

Judge Sorokin largely agreed with that position, dismissing arguments that existing immigration laws granted broad enough powers to support the fee proposal.

Trump Criticises Court Decision

Reacting to the ruling, Trump criticised federal judges and accused the judiciary of obstructing his policy agenda.

“These federal judges are really giving us a hard time. It's really crazy what's going on with the court system. They're hurting our country very badly,” he said.

The administration had defended the proposal as part of broader efforts to reduce what it described as excessive dependence on foreign labour and to prioritise American workers.

Impact on Indian Professionals

The decision is particularly significant for Indian nationals, who remain the largest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa system.

Data from Pew Research shows that approximately 73% of approved H-1B applications in fiscal year 2023 were granted to workers born in India. Indian professionals have consistently received the majority of H-1B approvals for more than a decade, particularly in technology, engineering, finance and healthcare sectors.

Industry observers noted that the proposed $100,000 fee could have discouraged employers from sponsoring foreign workers and potentially reduced opportunities for skilled professionals seeking jobs in the United States.

The ruling removes that uncertainty, at least for now, and preserves the existing framework under which employers can continue filing H-1B petitions.

Why H-1B Matters

The H-1B visa programme allows US companies to hire foreign workers in specialised occupations that generally require a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification.

The visa is typically granted for an initial period of three years and can be extended for another three years. Major technology companies, healthcare providers and engineering firms rely heavily on the programme to fill specialised positions.

Economists and business groups have long argued that access to global talent helps companies remain competitive and supports innovation across industries.

What Happens Next

While the ruling blocks the proposed fee, it does not end the broader debate surrounding the H-1B programme. Immigration policy remains a politically contentious issue in the United States, and future administrations could pursue legislative changes through Congress.

For now, however, the court’s decision ensures that employers and skilled foreign workers, particularly Indian professionals, will not face the proposed $100,000 H-1B visa fee. The judgment also serves as a reminder that major changes involving immigration-related taxation require clear congressional authorisation before they can take effect.

Adani seeks dismissal of US SEC fraud case citing lack of jurisdiction

Billionaire Gautam Adani and nephew Sagar Adani move New York court; claim zero investor losses and no direct US link in $750 million bond deal.

NEW YORK – Billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have moved a United States court seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In a pre-motion letter submitted to the Eastern District Court of New York, the Adanis argued that the regulator’s claims are legally flawed and fall outside the court's jurisdiction.

The latest news today comes as a significant counter-offensive by the conglomerate against allegations that it misled investors during a 2021 bond issuance.

Jurisdictional overreach challenged

Attorneys representing the Adanis stated that the SEC is attempting an “impermissible extraterritorial application” of US law.

They argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction as neither Gautam Adani nor Sagar Adani had sufficient contacts with the US regarding the transaction.

According to the filing, the issuer is an Indian entity, and the alleged conduct occurred entirely within India, making US laws inapplicable.

Bond sale outside US

The legal team clarified that the $750 million bond sale by Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL) was conducted under specific exemptions.

These securities were sold to non-US underwriters under Rule 144A and Regulation S, intended for markets outside the United States.

While some notes were later resold to qualified institutional buyers in the US, the Adanis maintain they were not parties to those secondary transactions.

No investor losses reported

A key pillar of the dismissal plea is the assertion that no investors suffered financial harm.

The Adani Group informed the court that the bonds in question matured in 2024 and were fully repaid with interest.

"The SEC does not allege that there were any investor losses, and there were none," the filing noted, highlighting the fulfillment of all financial obligations.

Refuting bribery allegations

The SEC’s lawsuit, filed in November 2024, alleged that the group failed to disclose a purported bribery scheme involving Indian officials.

The Adanis have vehemently denied these claims, stating there is no credible evidence to support the existence of such a scheme.

They further argued that the statements cited by the SEC—related to corporate reputation—amount to general corporate optimism or "puffery" rather than actionable fraud.

Legal strategy ahead

The defense highlighted that Gautam Adani did not attend any Management Committee meetings for AGEL between 2020 and 2024.

They argued the SEC failed to link him to specific misleading statements or prove any intent to defraud US-based investors.

The court has since accepted the request for a pre-motion conference, signaling a formal commencement of the dismissal proceedings.

April hearing expected

The legal battle is set for a major milestone on 30 April, when a detailed motion for dismissal will be formally presented.

Market analysts are closely watching this India news update, as the outcome could impact the group's global fundraising capabilities.

For now, the Adani Group remains firm that the US regulator has no standing to pursue a case rooted entirely in Indian operations.