Two federal judges have blocked the Trump administration's $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions. A Boston judge ruled in June that the fee is an unlawful tax Congress never authorized, and a California judge ruled Sept. 30 that the administration skipped required rulemaking.
The administration is appealing both rulings and pushing a nearly identical permanent fee of about $103,000 through rulemaking. In late October, California plaintiffs asked for a fast path to final judgment, while the government asked the court to wait for the Ninth Circuit; a stay hearing is set for Jan. 14, 2027. Since the blocks, USCIS has begun approving some petitions filed without the payment, though the appeals remain open.
Why it matters
Whether a president can impose six-figure visa fees by proclamation decides who controls the H-1B program: the White House or Congress.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
$100,000
New H‑1B payment requirement challenged in court
A proclamation-linked payment applied to certain new H‑1B filings after Sept. 21, 2025. Currently blocked by two courts.
20
Plaintiff states
A coalition led by California and Massachusetts filed in federal court.
$960–$7,595
Typical initial H‑1B fee range (pre-policy)
States argue the new amount is untethered from processing costs.
2
Federal judges who blocked the fee
Districts of Massachusetts and Northern California both ruled against the policy. The Northern California ruling is on appeal.
3
Major parallel legal challenges (at least)
States plus earlier suits from a business group and a broad coalition of workers/employers.
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.
12 events
Latest: October 25th, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Showing 8 of 12
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
October 2026
USCIS begins approving petitions filed without the payment
LatestRule Changes
According to immigration law firm Meltzer Hellrung, USCIS has started approving some H-1B petitions filed without the $100,000 payment. Those cases had been pending past premium processing deadlines, and the firm said progress is uneven.
Parties split on pace of California case
Legal
In a joint case management statement in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, plaintiffs asked for the administrative record by Nov. 3 as a first step toward summary judgment. The government asked to pause the case until the Ninth Circuit rules and to delay record production by 30 days after the appeals court's mandate.
Administration appeals California ruling
Legal
The Justice Department appeals Judge Haywood Gilliam's Sept. 30 order blocking the fee on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. The appeal does not lift the injunction.
September 2026
Trump extends fee through Sept. 21, 2027
Rule Changes
The White House extends the $100,000 payment requirement for another year, saying it has reduced employers' reliance on lower-paid foreign labor. The move came as legal challenges continued.
July 2026
Appeals court refuses to pause fee ruling
Legal
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt Judge Leo Sorokin's June ruling that the $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas is an unlawful tax Congress never authorized.
December 2025
Twenty states sue: “Congress didn’t authorize this”
Legal
California and Massachusetts lead a 20-state coalition in the District of Massachusetts, challenging the $100,000 fee as exceeding statutory authority and skipping required rulemaking.
November 2025
Congressional researchers summarize the new H‑1B landscape
Investigation
A CRS analysis lays out the proclamation theory, scope clarifications, and policy knock-on effects that are now showing up in court filings.
October 2025
USCIS guidance narrows the blast radius
Rule Changes
New guidance clarifies which petitions trigger the payment and which do not, signaling partial retreat without abandoning the core policy.
Business escalates: U.S. Chamber files its own case
Legal
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sues in D.C. federal court, arguing the proclamation exceeds presidential authority and breaks the statutory fee framework.
First big lawsuit: hospitals, unions, schools sue
Legal
A broad coalition files suit in the Northern District of California, arguing the fee is unlawful, unconstitutional, and procedurally defective under the APA.
September 2025
Effective date triggers confusion, travel reshuffles
Rule Changes
The proclamation’s payment condition begins applying to covered new filings after the effective timestamp, pushing employers toward emergency planning and legal counsel.
Trump drops the $100,000 H‑1B bomb
Rule Changes
President Trump issues a proclamation restricting entry of certain new H‑1B workers unless a $100,000 payment is made. Employers and institutions scramble to understand scope, exemptions, and mechanics.
Scenarios
1
Judge freezes the fee nationwide while cases proceed
Possible
Discussed by: Plaintiffs’ filings and legal coverage tracking injunction bids (e.g., Reuters; major immigration-law firm alerts)
A court grants a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction after finding likely statutory/APA violations and irreparable harm to hospitals, schools, and universities. The administration appeals, but the practical effect is immediate: the $100,000 condition stops being enforced (or can’t be enforced) while the merits are litigated.
2
Courts uphold the proclamation theory and the fee survives
Uncertain
Discussed by: Administration arguments previewed in public materials; legal analysts debating broad presidential entry powers
The government persuades courts that the payment is a lawful condition tied to entry restrictions and that agencies can implement it through guidance. If appellate courts accept that framing, employers face a new normal: either pay for overseas hires or retool hiring pipelines toward domestic conversions and cap-exempt strategies.
3
Administration narrows the fee into a selective lever, not a universal toll
Likely
Discussed by: USCIS guidance updates and coverage noting shifting scope and exemptions
Without conceding illegality, DHS/USCIS keeps narrowing categories through guidance and waiver practices—reducing immediate chaos and undercutting some plaintiffs’ urgency arguments. The fee remains on the books but is applied to a narrower slice of cases, turning the policy into a bargaining chip and enforcement tool rather than a blanket hiring stopper.
4
Congress steps in: codifies limits on fee-setting—or ratifies the fee
Unlikely
Discussed by: CRS analysis and long-running bipartisan H‑1B reform debates referenced by lawmakers
Facing legal uncertainty and employer pressure, Congress could clarify that immigration petition fees must track costs and require notice-and-comment for major changes—or it could explicitly authorize a large surcharge. Either move would reshape the courts’ role by turning a separation-of-powers fight into a straight statutory interpretation question.
5
Appeals courts uphold both fee-freezes
Likely
Resolves by Q2 2027
Discussed by: Legal analysts at Reason and Reuters coverage of the litigations
The 1st Circuit already declined to pause the Boston injunction in July. If appellate courts also uphold the California ruling, the fee stays blocked while DHS's permanent $103,000 rule moves through notice-and-comment.
6
Judge rejects the stay and the California case moves to summary judgment
Uncertain
Resolves by Jan 14, 2027
Discussed by: Plaintiffs in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, per their Oct. 20 filing
If the court denies the government's stay request, the administrative record would be produced on the plaintiffs' schedule and summary judgment could follow. A final ruling against the fee would be harder to reverse than the current temporary order.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
2017-01 to 2018-06
Trump’s 2017 travel ban litigation (Trump v. Hawaii)
Early executive restrictions on entry triggered immediate nationwide injunction fights, rapid policy revisions, and a sprint to the Supreme Court. The legal battle became a referendum on how much deference courts owe a president using entry-power statutes.
Then
Policy morphed through revisions while courts narrowed and tested it.
Now
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version, reinforcing broad entry-power deference.
Why this matters now
This H‑1B fight uses the same basic playbook: entry authority leveraged to achieve domestic policy goals.
2 of 3
2020-06 to 2021-03
Trump-era restrictions on work visas during 2020 (including H‑1B-related suspensions)
The administration used presidential proclamations and agency moves to restrict work visas and reshape employment-based immigration. Employers, universities, and advocacy groups sued, arguing over statutory authority and administrative procedure.
Then
Litigation and policy churn produced uncertainty and partial rollbacks.
Now
Courts and subsequent administrations narrowed or reversed several measures, but the executive-action template endured.
Why this matters now
It shows how quickly work-visa policy can turn into whiplash—and why plaintiffs focus on APA process.
3 of 3
1998-10 to 2004-12
Congressional fee-setting for H‑1B (ACWIA and later statutory surcharges)
Congress imposed and revised H‑1B-related fees and training surcharges through legislation, explicitly linking payments to specific purposes and guardrails.
Then
Employers paid higher statutory fees with clear legislative authorization.
Now
It cemented the norm that big H‑1B fee changes come from Congress, not improvisation.
Why this matters now
It clarifies the core dispute: plaintiffs argue the administration is trying to do legislatively what Congress historically did itself.
