Federal Court Vacates $100,000 H-1B Fee

On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts vacated the $100,000 H-1B application fee imposed under President Trump’s September 19, 2025, proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, holding that the fee functioned as an unauthorized tax and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

On June 12, 2026, the court denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal, meaning the vacatur remains in effect and the fee is not being enforced while the appeal proceeds.

This update applies to employers that sponsor or plan to sponsor H-1B non-immigrant workers. The vacatur took effect on June 8, 2026; a conflicting ruling from a federal court in Washington, D.C. remains in place, and the government has appealed the Massachusetts decision.

What Employers Need to Do

• Review pending and planned H-1B petitions to determine which filings may benefit from the vacatur while it remains in effect.

• Preserve documentation of all workforce-planning decisions made in reliance on the $100,000 fee, including any delayed or abandoned petitions.

• Monitor appellate activity closely, particularly any government request for a stay at the appellate level that could reinstate the fee on short notice.

• Consult immigration counsel before assuming the fee is permanently eliminated, given the conflicting rulings and the active appeal.

• Evaluate whether refund claims may be available for fees already paid once the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues further guidance.

Overview

What the Court Ruled

• The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and vacated the policy materials implementing the $100,000 fee in their entirety.

• The judge held that the $100,000 payment functioned as a tax, not a valid fee or penalty, because hiring H-1B workers is lawful and the government conceded the payment was not tied to the cost of administering a service.

• The court found that INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a) authorize restrictions on entry but do not clearly delegate Congress’s taxing power to the President. The policy violated separation-of-powers principles.

• The court also found multiple APA violations: the agencies issued legislative rules without notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded their statutory authority, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to provide a reasoned explanation, consider reliance interests, or assess impacts on sectors like education and healthcare.

Current Litigation Landscape

• On June 12, 2026, the court denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. This means the vacatur remains in full effect and the fee is not being enforced while the appeal proceeds.

• The government has filed a notice of appeal. The case will now move to the appellate level, where the government could seek a stay directly from the appeals court.

• A separate federal court in Washington, D.C. previously upheld the fee in Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, Case No. 1:25-cv-03675, creating a split in the litigation landscape. That case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which heard oral argument in March 2026.

• A third lawsuit, Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-08454, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Practical Status

• The $100,000 fee is not in effect right now. The rule was vacated on June 8, and the government’s attempt to pause that decision through a stay was denied on June 12.

• USCIS should not require the $100,000 fee while the vacatur remains in effect, but the government could seek a stay at the appellate level, which could reinstate the fee on shorter notice.

• Refunds for fees already paid were not clearly resolved in the decision and have not yet been addressed in available guidance.

Why This Matters

The ruling provides immediate financial relief for employers sponsoring H-1B workers by removing a $100,000 barrier that had significantly increased the cost of hiring foreign talent since September 2025.

The denial of the stay on June 12 strengthens that relief by confirming the fee will not be enforced while the appeal proceeds — at least unless an appellate court grants a stay later. However, the conflicting D.C. ruling, the active appeal, and the pending California case mean the legal landscape remains unsettled, and employers should treat the current relief as meaningful but not necessarily permanent.

Key Risks for Employers

• Assuming the Fee is Permanently Eliminated: The government has appealed and could seek a stay at the appellate level that reinstates the requirement while litigation continues.

• Operational Disruption from Shifting Requirements: If an appellate stay is granted, employers may need to adjust H-1B filing strategies quickly because the fee could return on short notice.

• Unresolved Refund Status: Employers who already paid the $100,000 fee do not yet have clear guidance on whether or how refunds will be processed.

• Workforce-planning Exposure: Employers who delayed H-1B petitions because of the fee may face timing and compliance challenges if they now need to file promptly while the vacatur holds.

• Conflicting Court Rulings: The D.C. ruling upholding the fee, the Massachusetts ruling vacating it, and the pending California case create legal uncertainty that may not be resolved until an appellate court weighs in.

Additional Information

The plaintiffs in this case included public education entities, public universities, and healthcare systems that alleged harm to their ability to hire and retain workers through the H-1B program. The court found those allegations sufficient for standing.

As relief, the court vacated the implementing policy materials in their entirety and issued declaratory relief but declined to issue a separate permanent injunction, stating that vacatur already provided complete relief.

Source References

• 25-13829 – State of California et al v. Noem et al – June 8, 2026
• Reminder Federal: H-1B Visa Program Gets a $100,000 One Time Fee (VensureHR)

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.