Executive orders and presidential actions issued during President Donald Trump’s second term are facing increasing legal scrutiny across the United States. Administrative measures targeting immigration, elections, federal spending, government employees, universities, and law firms have triggered hundreds of lawsuits. Although some lower court injunctions have been overturned on appeal, courts have ruled in several significant cases that the president exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority.
The latest major setback concerns the administration’s plan to impose an additional $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications for highly skilled foreign workers.
On July 24, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rejected the Trump administration’s request to suspend a lower court ruling, allowing that decision to remain in effect while the appeal proceeds. As a result, the administration cannot currently enforce the proposed $100,000 charge for new H-1B visa petitions. The appeals court said the government had failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal to justify blocking the lower court’s ruling.
Earlier, on June 8, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled that the $100,000 payment requirement was unlawful. The judge concluded that the charge was neither a routine administrative fee nor a penalty for unlawful conduct. Instead, it functioned as a tax, and under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to impose new taxes rests with Congress—not the president.
The court further held that the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of foreign nationals does not extend to imposing new financial burdens on employers sponsoring visa applicants. Judge Sorokin struck down the policy entirely and ordered the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to stop collecting the fee.
Although some news reports and social media posts referred to the $100,000 payment as a “bond,” court documents and the policy itself make clear that it was not a refundable bond. Rather, it was a mandatory, non-refundable payment that employers would have been required to pay before new H-1B visa petitions could be processed.
President Trump introduced the policy through a Presidential Proclamation in September 2025. While it was not formally issued as an executive order, it represented a direct exercise of presidential executive authority.
The policy primarily targeted new H-1B workers applying from outside the United States. It generally did not apply in the same way to visa renewals for many students already in the U.S. or existing H-1B holders. Before the policy, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in government fees for a standard H-1B petition. The new rule would have added an extra $100,000 to that cost.
Twenty Democratic-led states, including California, challenged the policy in court. They argued that the fee would not only hurt technology companies but also make it significantly more difficult for hospitals, universities, research institutions, and government agencies to recruit foreign physicians, professors, engineers, and researchers.
The plaintiffs maintained that many states already face shortages of doctors, teachers, and other highly skilled professionals. Smaller hospitals, educational institutions, and research organizations, they argued, would be unable to absorb such a substantial additional expense.
The Trump administration defended the policy, saying the fee was intended to curb abuse of the H-1B visa program and discourage employers from replacing American workers with lower-paid foreign employees. However, the federal court ruled that the president could not effectively punish lawful hiring practices by imposing such a financial charge.
The July 24 appellate ruling does not resolve the case permanently. The administration’s appeal will continue, and the government could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the dispute.
For now, however, the immediate effect of the ruling is that the lower court’s decision remains in force while litigation continues, meaning federal agencies should not collect the $100,000 fee. Immigration attorneys have cautioned that it may take time for government websites, filing instructions, and technical systems to reflect the court’s decision.
Election Order Also Faces Court Resistance
The H-1B case is not the only legal challenge confronting the Trump administration.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court injunction blocking key provisions of another executive order related to election administration. The order directed federal agencies to help create a centralized voter database and imposed new restrictions on the mailing and acceptance of absentee ballots.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia challenged the order, arguing that the U.S. Constitution gives primary authority over election administration to the states and Congress, not the president acting alone. The appeals court agreed that the challengers had shown sufficient legal grounds to keep the injunction in place.
Hundreds of Legal Challenges
Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against his executive orders and other administrative actions. Some cases challenge entire executive orders, while others target specific provisions or the way federal agencies have implemented presidential directives.
As a result, there is no single official count of how many executive orders have been struck down by the courts. The same order may face multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions, and temporary injunctions issued by lower courts can later be reversed by appellate courts or the Supreme Court.
Legal organizations such as Lawfare and Just Security continue to track ongoing litigation involving the Trump administration. Their databases show legal challenges spanning immigration, elections, national security, federal spending, the civil service, and civil rights.
Debate Over Presidential Power
The Trump administration argues that the president, as the nation’s elected leader, possesses broad authority to act swiftly on matters involving border security, immigration, and national security. The White House has also accused some lower court judges of improperly interfering with national policymaking.
Opponents—including states, civil rights organizations, and constitutional scholars—counter that while presidential authority is broad, it is not unlimited. The Constitution assigns many key powers, including taxation, federal spending, and election administration, directly to Congress or the states.
The rulings blocking the $100,000 H-1B fee and preserving the injunction against parts of the election order have once again highlighted those constitutional limits. While the Trump administration continues to pursue an aggressive executive agenda, repeated judicial interventions suggest that, at least in some areas, the courts are placing meaningful constraints on the scope of presidential executive power.
