Tariff Ruling Undermines $100,000 Trump H-1B Fee, Chamber Says

The US Supreme Court’s decision overturning President Donald Trump’s global tariffs bolsters lawsuits seeking to strike down a $100,000 fee on H-1B workers from outside the US, challengers including the US Chamber of Commerce say.

The justices’ 6-3 opinion found that the Constitution’s framers gave taxing powers to Congress, not the executive. That means when adopting revenue-raising measures, the president must cite explicit statutory authority—even in foreign affairs contexts—wrote Adam G. Unikowsky, a partner at Jenner & Block LLP, which represents the Chamber.

“Like the challenged tariffs, the $100,000 fee plainly is an exercise of Congress’s taxing power,” he said in letter to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The appeals court is weighing a DC federal judge’s decision denying an injunction on the fee, which the White House imposed via proclamation in September. The fee was the biggest escalation in a series of moves restricting employment-based immigration programs, upending employer hiring plans and prompting multiple lawsuits.

The Chamber has argued the fee clashes with the statutory framework of the H-1B program and contradicts congressional intent that fees for immigration programs be used only to offset costs.

The justices’ Feb. 20 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump supports reversing the lower court, the group said in a Tuesday filing.

The high court also found the executive’s authority to regulate doesn’t include the power to tax. The same logic applies to the H-1B program fees, Unikowsky wrote.

Plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit in the Northern District of California said in a court filing this week that the Supreme Court decision is relevant to whether the president can rely on the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose a tax on US employers, whether the major questions doctrine requires congressional authorization for the $100,000 payment, and whether implementation of the fee by federal agencies is contrary to the law.

The US Chamber of Commerce is also represented by Clement & Murphy PLLC, McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, and the US Chamber Litigation Center. The government is represented by the Department of Justice.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, D.C. Cir., No. 25-05473, letter filed 2/24/26.