On June 8, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts vacated the $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions that was established in September 2025 by President Trump. The court’s ruling conflicts with another district court’s ruling in a separate lawsuit that allowed the fee to stand. With multiple lawsuits, conflicting rulings and ongoing litigation, employers should proceed with caution and continue to work with legal counsel on their H-1B strategies.
This is just the most recent court ruling since Trump issued his H-1B visa-related presidential proclamation. Originally issued on September 19, 2025, this proclamation required that employer petitions for H-1B visas include a $100,000 payment for each visa petition, which must be paid before the petition is filed. The proclamation stated that the measure was intended to address abuse of the H-1B visa program. Subsequently, the White House and several federal agencies issued guidance on the proclamation, confirming that the fee would only apply to new petitions filed after the proclamation date.
In December 2025, a coalition of states filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the proclamation. The states asserted that the proclamation and corresponding fee significantly increased the cost of H-1B petitions, which cost somewhere between $960 and $7,595 prior to the proclamation, harming their ability to hire various professionals, including teachers, college faculty and health care workers. They argued that the proclamation exceeded the president’s authority and that the subsequent agency guidance violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The main issue in the case was whether the $100,000 payment was a tax, penalty or a legitimate regulatory fee. The court ultimately concluded that the fee is a tax that only Congress can impose. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 Affordable Care Act case, the court determined that the payment is not a penalty, which requires punishment for unlawful conduct. The court also rejected the defendant’s assertion that the payment was a regulatory fee, which must be linked to the cost of providing services.
After concluding that the payment was a tax, the court reviewed the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and confirmed that nothing in it clearly delegates Congress’s taxing power to the president. As such, the proclamation exceeded the president’s authority. The court also agreed with the states that the federal government violated the APA’s rulemaking requirements when it published its proclamation guidance materials. Ultimately, the court vacated the fee in its entirety.
The court’s decision conflicts with a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In that case, the court upheld the H-1B Visa fee, concluding that the president had broad authority under the INA to regulate entry into the United States for both immigrants and nonimmigrants, and that the proclamation falls within that authority. This case has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Additionally, a group of plaintiffs that included a health care staffing company, labor unions, academic professionals, various religious organizations and others filed another lawsuit challenging the proclamation, which is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The federal government is expected to appeal the Massachusetts court’s decision. Since litigation is ongoing in multiple lawsuits, the H-1B visa payment requirements may continue to change. Employers should monitor developments and work with legal counsel on how to proceed with their H-1B petitions.
James W. Ward, J.D., Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about The H-1B Visa in the HR Library. Not a member? See how CalChamber can help you.
