On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee requirement, finding that the policy exceeded presidential authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The government is expected to appeal.
Quick Hits
- A federal district court vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee requirement.
- The court found that the fee exceeded presidential authority and violated the APA.
- The government is expected to appeal, and USCIS has not yet announced how it will implement the ruling.
Background
On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10973, invoking Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to impose a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on new H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries located outside the United States. The administration stated that the measure was intended to address perceived abuse of the H-1B program and to protect U.S. workers, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations. Before the proclamation, H-1B filing fees generally ranged from approximately $960 to $7,595, depending on the employer and filing circumstances.
Multiple federal lawsuits have challenged the proclamation. In December 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., upheld the fee requirement in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. That decision is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which heard oral argument in March 2026. Separately, a coalition of healthcare organizations, labor unions, and educational institutions filed a challenge in Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump, which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
In December 2025, a coalition of twenty states filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing that the proclamation exceeded the president’s statutory authority and that the agency guidance implementing the fee violated the APA. On June 8, 2026, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims and vacated the implementing policy and its implementing guidance in its entirety.
Analysis and Impact
The court found that the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement is a tax, not an immigration restriction, and that the president lacks the authority to impose it. Relying on the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the district court explained that only the U.S. Congress has the power to impose taxes. While the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the president to restrict the entry of noncitizens, it does not authorize the president to create new taxes. The court therefore concluded that the proclamation exceeded the president’s legal authority.
The court also held that the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act in implementing the policy. Specifically, the agencies failed to follow the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process, exceeded the fee-setting authority granted by Congress, and did not adequately consider the policy’s impact on employers and institutions outside the technology sector, including healthcare providers, universities, and schools.
Key Takeaways
- The government is expected to appeal the decision and ask the court to pause the ruling while the appeal is ongoing. If the court agrees, the $100,000 fee could still be required for now.
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet explained how it will handle the ruling. It is unclear whether the agency will stop requiring the fee right away, update its guidance, or take another approach.
- A separate appeal is still underway in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court could issue a decision at any time, which may affect the outcome regardless of the recent ruling.
- Other lawsuits challenging the proclamation are also continuing, including the Global Nurse Force case in California. Because of this, the rules around the fee requirement may continue to change in the coming months.
