The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to reshape the H-1B visa program through executive action. A second federal judge in California issued a separate ruling on September 30, 2026, blocking the fee on procedural grounds, further complicating the government’s ability to enforce the payment requirement .
For employers, international workers, and H-1B applicants, the immediate practical effect is that the $100,000 payment is not currently enforceable. However, the administration has appealed the Massachusetts decision, and a separate proposed rule that would impose a $103,265 fee through formal rulemaking remains pending.
What Was the $100,000 H-1B Fee?
On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10973, titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” . The proclamation imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on certain new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025.
The administration stated that the fee was intended to address what it described as “large-scale replacement of American workers” through the H-1B program . The proclamation applied specifically to new H-1B petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who were outside the United States and did not hold a valid H-1B visa .
Importantly, the payment requirement did not apply universally to every H-1B worker. It did not affect:
- Previously issued and currently valid H-1B visas
- Petitions submitted before September 21, 2025
- Extensions of stay or amendments for workers already in the United States who were granted such status
- H-1B holders traveling in and out of the United States on valid visas
The administration later extended the proclamation for an additional year through September 21, 2027, citing a reported 92% decline in H-1B registrations by large IT outsourcing firms .
What Did the Federal Court Decide?
On June 8, 2026, Judge Sorokin issued a 42-page ruling in a case brought by 20 states challenging the fee . The court vacated the agency policy implementing the $100,000 payment requirement on four independent grounds.
Unauthorized Tax: The court found that the $100,000 payment constituted a tax rather than a regulatory fee or penalty. Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to levy taxes belongs exclusively to Congress. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not delegate this congressional taxing power to the executive branch .
Administrative Procedure Act Violation: The court held that the government’s swift implementation of the fee through presidential proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The agencies failed to comply with mandatory notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and did not provide a reasoned explanation for the massive new financial burden .
Exceeding Statutory Authority: The court found that the agencies exceeded their statutory fee-setting authority under the INA .
Arbitrary and Capricious Action: The government did not adequately consider employers’ reliance interests before imposing the fee .
The court’s decision vacated the policy nationwide. Judge Sorokin cited the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, which rejected executive authority to impose tariffs without congressional authorization, as supporting precedent .
The government appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the district court’s judgment pending appeal, meaning the vacatur remains in effect while the appeal proceeds .
What Is the Trump Administration Arguing?
The administration has defended the fee on several grounds. It argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the President broad authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals whose admission would be detrimental to U.S. interests .
Under this interpretation, the $100,000 payment was a condition on entry—a lawful exercise of the President’s immigration authority—rather than a tax. The administration contends that the payment was designed to protect American workers and ensure that employers recruit only the most highly skilled foreign workers when needed .
The White House has stated it will appeal the Massachusetts ruling. A White House spokesperson said the President has clear legal authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals deemed not to serve the national interest .
The administration has also cited data showing that the fee led to significant behavioral changes, including a 92% decrease in H-1B registrations by large IT outsourcing firms and a shift toward applicants with higher qualifications and wages .
What Are the Lawsuits Challenging?
Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the fee, raising distinct legal arguments.
State of California v. Noem (D. Mass.): Twenty states, led by California, brought the case that resulted in Judge Sorokin’s June 8 ruling. The states argued that the fee exceeded presidential authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and would harm public institutions including universities and healthcare systems that rely on H-1B workers .
Global Nurse Force v. Trump (N.D. Cal.): A coalition of unions, employers, and nonprofit groups filed a separate lawsuit challenging the fee. On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam granted the plaintiffs’ request to block the fee while their lawsuit proceeds, finding that USCIS and the State Department failed to follow required rulemaking procedures before implementing the charge .
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation: The Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, filed a separate lawsuit challenging the fee. The Chamber is appealing a district court decision that rejected its argument that the President lacked authority to impose the charge .
The challengers have argued that the fee exceeds executive authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers, violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s procedural requirements, and would cause irreparable harm to employers, workers, and public institutions that depend on the H-1B program .
What Does This Mean for Current H-1B Workers?
For existing H-1B holders: The $100,000 payment requirement never applied to workers with previously issued and currently valid H-1B visas. The court ruling does not affect their status or ability to remain in the United States .
For H-1B extensions and transfers: The proclamation did not apply to petitions requesting extensions of stay or amendments for beneficiaries already in the United States, provided the beneficiary was granted such status. The ruling does not change these exceptions .
For new H-1B applicants: New H-1B petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries outside the United States are not currently subject to the $100,000 payment because the court vacated the policy. Employers filing such petitions do not need to include proof of payment while the vacatur remains in effect .
For employers sponsoring workers: Employers are not required to make the $100,000 payment for affected petitions while the court’s order is in place. However, employers should monitor the status of the government’s appeal and any new regulatory proposals .
For prospective international workers: The court ruling removes a significant financial barrier for employers considering sponsorship of new H-1B workers. However, the administration’s appeal and the proposed $103,265 rule introduce ongoing uncertainty that could affect hiring decisions .
What About the Proposed New H-1B Fee?
Separate from the $100,000 proclamation, the Department of Homeland Security published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 25, 2026, that would impose a new $103,265 fee on H-1B cap-subject petitions .
This is a proposed rule, not a final or effective policy. It would apply to petitions filed under the regular 65,000 annual cap and the 20,000 advanced-degree exemption . The fee would not apply to cap-exempt petitions, including those filed by universities, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations, nor to extensions, amendments, or transfers for beneficiaries already counted against the cap .
DHS states the fee would generate approximately $8.8 billion annually to fund immigration-related activities across multiple federal agencies, including USCIS, ICE, CBP, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Department of State, and the Department of Labor .
The proposed rule has a 30-day public comment period. It would not take effect until DHS reviews comments and issues a final rule. Legal challenges are widely expected if the rule is finalized .
DHS has acknowledged that if the original proclamation survives its legal appeals, employers could potentially face both the proclamation payment and the new regulatory fee .
What Happens Next?
First Circuit Appeal: The government’s appeal of the Massachusetts ruling remains pending. The First Circuit will review the merits of Judge Sorokin’s decision. The court has already denied the government’s request to stay the ruling during the appeal .
Potential Supreme Court Review: The case presents significant separation-of-powers questions regarding presidential authority and the taxing power. Either party could seek Supreme Court review following the First Circuit’s decision .
California Case: The September 30 ruling by Judge Gilliam blocks the fee while the Global Nurse Force litigation proceeds. The government may appeal this decision as well .
Proposed $103,265 Rule: DHS will review public comments and decide whether to finalize, modify, or withdraw the proposed rule. If finalized, the rule would likely face immediate legal challenges .
Extended Proclamation: The administration has extended the $100,000 proclamation through September 21, 2027. However, the extension does not make the fee enforceable while the court’s vacatur remains in effect .
What H-1B Applicants Should Know
Check Official Sources: Monitor USCIS announcements and the Federal Register for updates on the fee’s legal status and any new rulemaking developments.
Consult Immigration Counsel: Employers and workers with pending or planned H-1B petitions should consult qualified U.S. immigration attorneys to understand how the ruling and ongoing litigation affect their specific situations.
Monitor Employer Guidance: Employers should coordinate with their immigration counsel to track appeal deadlines, potential stays, and any changes in filing requirements.
Keep Documentation Current: Maintain accurate records of petition filings, payment receipts, and any correspondence with USCIS or consular offices.
Understand Filing-Specific Impact: The $100,000 payment requirement applied only to certain new petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, on behalf of beneficiaries outside the United States without valid H-1B visas. Not all H-1B filings were affected .
Do Not Rely on This Article as Legal Advice: Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. This article provides general information about recent legal developments and should not be used as a substitute for individualized legal advice.
FAQ Section
Is the $100,000 H-1B fee currently in effect?
No. A federal court vacated the policy implementing the $100,000 payment requirement on June 8, 2026, and the First Circuit denied the government’s request to stay that ruling. The fee is not currently enforceable while the appeal proceeds .
Does the $100,000 fee apply to all H-1B workers?
No. The payment requirement applied specifically to certain new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, on behalf of beneficiaries outside the United States who did not hold valid H-1B visas. It did not apply to existing visa holders, extensions, or petitions filed before that date .
What is the difference between the $100,000 fee and the proposed $103,265 fee?
The $100,000 fee was imposed through a presidential proclamation in September 2025 and was struck down by a federal court. The $103,265 fee is a separate proposal published by DHS in August 2026 through formal rulemaking. The proposed rule is not yet final or effective .
Could the $100,000 fee be reinstated?
The government has appealed the Massachusetts ruling. If the First Circuit reverses the district court’s decision, the fee could potentially be reinstated. The administration has also extended the proclamation through September 2027. However, predicting the outcome of pending litigation is not possible .
What should employers do now?
Employers should continue to monitor official USCIS guidance and consult immigration counsel. The $100,000 payment is not currently required for affected petitions, but the legal landscape remains uncertain due to the pending appeal and the proposed $103,265 rule .