Client Alert: Federal Court Vacates $100K H-1B Payment Requirement

On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the policy implementing the $100,000 payment requirement, restoring, at least for now, a more predictable filing landscape for H-1B petitions. In State of California et al. v. Mullin et al., Judge Leo T. Sorokin granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and vacated the federal agency policy. The court concluded that the policy was unlawful and set it aside in its entirety. The Trump Administration is expected to appeal and may seek a stay of the court order. Employers and affected foreign nationals will want to promptly reassess their strategies.

The now-vacated policy stemmed from Presidential Proclamation 10973, issued in September 2025, which sought to restrict entry of certain H-1B nonimmigrant workers and required a $100,000 payment for covered new H-1B petitions. USCIS later instructed that covered petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025, had to include proof of payment or evidence of an exception from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The court’s decision is significant because it rejects the government’s position that the $100,000 payment was a permissible immigration-related restriction. Instead, the court found that, in substance and application, the payment operated as a tax on H-1B petitions. The court held that Congress had not delegated that taxing authority to the President under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court also found violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, including failure to use notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeding statutory fee authority, and arbitrary and capricious agency action.

For employers, the practical takeaway is that the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement has been vacated unless and until a higher court or a stay changes the result. Employers that delayed filings, redirected hiring plans, or paused international recruitment because of the fee should promptly reassess their H-1B strategy. This may include reviewing candidates abroad, cap-exempt opportunities, change-of-status options, and cases that were previously considered financially impractical.

For foreign nationals, the decision may reopen pathways that had become uncertain or cost-prohibitive. However, the ruling does not eliminate the ordinary H-1B requirements, including that H-1B applicants must enter the annual lottery if they are subject to the H-1B cap and unable to file a cap-exempt H-1B petition. Employers must still establish that the offered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, obtain a certified Labor Condition Application where required, pay the appropriate wage, submit required filing fees, and comply with all USCIS evidentiary requirements. The ruling also does not guarantee approval of any H-1B petition.

Employers and workers should also remain cautious. The administration is expected to appeal, and the government may seek a stay of the ruling. If a stay is granted, the payment requirement could be temporarily reinstated while appellate proceedings continue.

Employers that already paid the $100,000 fee should preserve all payment confirmations, filing receipts, USCIS correspondence, and related records. The court’s order vacates the policy, but it does not, by itself, provide a detailed individual refund process. Affected employers should consult counsel before taking action, particularly where a petition was denied, rejected, withdrawn, or held because of the payment requirement.

In the near term, employers should monitor U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection guidance for operational updates. Agency systems, consular posts, and ports of entry may need time to conform their procedures to the court’s order. Foreign nationals should avoid making international travel decisions based solely on headlines and should coordinate with their employer and immigration counsel before departing the United States or scheduling visa appointments.

This ruling is a major development for H-1B employers, universities, healthcare institutions, technology companies, startups, and skilled foreign nationals. It restores, at least for now, a more predictable filing landscape for covered H-1B petitions. Because litigation may continue quickly, affected parties should review their options now and be prepared to act promptly if agency guidance or appellate rulings change the current posture.

This is a developing situation that should be monitored closely. Additional agency guidance, appellate activity, or a potential stay could affect how the ruling is implemented in practice. For the latest information and analysis, please visit our website or contact your Fennemore immigration counsel.

DISCLAIMER: This client alert is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If legal advice is needed, please consult with an attorney.

Alycia Moss is a Director and chairs Fennemore’s Immigration practice group. Her national practice focuses guiding businesses, families, and individuals through the complexities of U.S. immigration law. Alycia is based in Fennemore’s Coeur d’Alene, Idaho office. You can contact Alycia at amoss@fennemorelaw.com.

Catherine Renshaw is an immigration attorney, with experience representing clients in matters before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration Court, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal courts. Catherine is based in Fennemore’s Boise, Idaho office. You can contact Catherine at crenshaw@fennemorelaw.com.

Find more information about Fennemore’s Immigration services here.