Last year, on September 19th, 2025, President Trump signed a Proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on H1B visa applicants seeking to enter the US from abroad. Since then, there have been a few lawsuits filed against this proclamation by various organizations and US States seeking to get rid of the $100K fee as it impacts many of their stakeholders.
On June 8th, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) issued a decision striking down the $100K additional fee for H1B applicants who are applying from outside of the US.
In this article, we will look at the background of the lawsuit, the result, key arguments from the court ruling, and the next steps to expect.
Background: Trump’s Proclamation with $100K Fee for Certain H1B Applicants
Below is a brief background of the proclamation signed by President Trump in 2025:
- Proclamation Signed: President Trump signed a proclamation on September 19th, 2025, to address abuses of the H1B Program and help American Workers.
- Primary Reason for Proclamation: The proclamation states that mainly Information Technology(IT) firms have abused the H1B program. Also, it says that many American Tech Companies have done thousands of layoffs of their American workers, but at the same time, have hired many H1B workers.
- What does the Proclamation do to H1B Workers: As per the proclamation, the entry of H1B workers into the US is restricted. Only H1B visa holders who have paid $100,000, unless they fall under exceptions for national interest, are allowed to enter the US starting on the effective date of the proclamation, which is 12:01 EST on September 21, 2025. Read complete details at: H1B $100K Fee Trump’s Proclamation – How it works? and later clarification by USCIS on How the $100K Fee works for H1B holders.
- Major Lawsuits Filed: There were three major lawsuits filed against the proclamation by President Trump. Below are the high-level details
- Multiple States Lawsuit (California + 19 other states) (Dec 2025): About twenty Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit claiming that the fee was effectively an unauthorized tax and violated the Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act. Saying that it would worsen labor shortages in education, healthcare, and government.
- Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (Oct 2025): The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities (AAU) filed this lawsuit. It challenged the fee, arguing it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA) and exceeded presidential authority. The Court issued a judgment upholding the fee as a valid entry restriction; the decision is now on appeal.
- Global Nurse Force v. Trump (Oct 2025): This lawsuit was filed by healthcare providers, educational institutions, and employers. The main argument was that the fee was unlawful and would severely harm hiring in healthcare and education. No judgment on this yet.
Now that we have the background, let’s dive into the details of the decision by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston)
Summary of the US Court Ruling Striking down $100K Fee
Below is a quick summary of who decided the case and what they decided:
- Who decided: Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
- Who sued: A coalition of 20 states, led by California, in the case State of California et al. v. Mullin.
- When: The ruling was issued on June 8, 2026, as both sides had asked for the summary judgment.
- The Judgment: The coalition of the states won the lawsuit on every count. The court declared the policy unlawful and vacated (means, removed it entirely) the $100,000 fee.
Below is the screenshot of the exact final judgment by the Judge. When the judgment says “Vacated,” it means that the rule itself is wiped out — not just blocked for the 20 states that filed the lawsuit. It will be applicable nationwide.
Merits of the Case: Why the States Won – Key Reasons
Below are the key reasons why the States won the case:
Only the US Congress can impose taxes, not the President
As per the arguments in the case, the court reached a conclusion based on the following steps:
- Is the $100K Fee a tax or a penalty? A penalty is a punishment for doing something illegal. But hiring an H1B worker is perfectly legal. So the $100,000 is not a penalty – it is technically a tax.
- Who holds the power to tax in the US? The US Constitution gives the power to tax exclusively to the US Congress. The President can impose a tax only if the US Congress has clearly handed him that power through a law. He cannot just collect taxes by his authority.
- Did the immigration law give him that power? No. The immigration law (INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a)) lets the President “restrict,” “regulate,” or “limit” the entry of foreigners – but none of those words include the power to tax. The court relied on the recent Supreme Court tariff case (Learning Resources), which made exactly this point.
Bottom line: The President tried to collect money without the US Congress giving him the power to do so. That made the collection of the $100K fee unlawful. Below is the screenshot of the actual argument from the Court’s judgment document
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Violations
As per the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is nothing but a set of rules that government agencies must follow when they make new rules, there were three separate violations:
- No legal authority for USCIS to charge more: No law allows USCIS to charge $100,000. The law allows only “adjudication fees” to be collected by USCIS to recover the costs of processing a case. The government itself admitted this fee was not designed to cover costs, so it had no legal basis.
- Skipped the required Federal rulemaking process: Big rules like the $100K fee for H1B applicants normally must go through a “Notice and Comment Period”, where the public gets a chance to give input. DHS/USCIS skipped this entirely and relied solely on policy memos and FAQs. The court rejected their “good cause” and “foreign affairs” excuses.
- Arbitrary and capricious: Federal Agencies must give a reasoned explanation for big changes. For the $100,000 Fee for H1B applicants, they gave no proper explanation. USCIS/DHS never considered alternatives (such as exempting universities and hospitals, or choosing a smaller amount), and ignored the impact on schools and the healthcare system.
Below is the screenshot of the APA-related argument points and decision from Court.
How the States Framed Their Case to Highlight Harm
To win the case, all 20 states had to show that the $100K fee actually harmed them. They argued that the additional fee for the H1B applicants hurts real people and important public services:
- Public schools Impact: It would be harder to hire teachers for K-12 public schools, worsening existing teacher shortages.
- Impact on Public universities: It would be tougher to staff public colleges and to keep critical academic research going.
- Impact on the Healthcare System: It would reduce the number of H1B doctors and other medical workers available, deepening staffing shortages and raising costs for state health programs.
The court also rejected the main defenses raised by the government:
- “Courts cannot review visa decisions”: The court disagreed – the states were challenging the legality of a policy, not the denial of any single visa.
- “The President has sweeping, inherent power here”: The court disagreed – that power has limits, and it never included the power to tax.
- “This is just a regulatory payment, not a tax”: The court disagreed – what matters is the substance of the payment, and in substance it is a tax.
Final Judgment – $100K Fee for H1Bs Removed Nationwide
The court did not just block the $100K fee for the states that sued; it vacated the policy. Here is what that means in practice:
- The rule itself is wiped out: “Vacated” means the policy is set aside, not just paused for the 20 states in the lawsuit.
- Applies nationwide: Because the court canceled the rule itself, the decision benefits all H1B employers across the US, not just the employers or states that filed the lawsuit.
- No need for an injunction: The court also formally ruled the policy as illegal and said no additional court order was needed because it had already been struck down.
Below is a screenshot of the court’s opinion highlighting the key parts. Also, in the first section of the article, we shared the judgment screenshot; you can check that too.
Two Courts, Opposite Conclusions – Tricky Situation
Among the lawsuits filed against the $100K fee for H1B applicants, two courts have come up with final judgments. Two different federal courts looked at the same $100,000 fee and reached opposite conclusions. An earlier ruling in Washington, D.C. (the Chamber of Commerce case) actually upheld a nearly identical fee.
The table below compares both the two decisions from the Courts:
| Question | Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (D.C. – Upheld the fee) | California v. Mullin (Massachusetts – Struck it down) |
| Is the fee a tax? | No – treated it as a valid restriction on entry, not a tax. | Yes – it is a tax, because hiring H1B workers is legal. |
| Presidential power under INA 212(f)? | Yes – the payment is an authorized restriction on entry. | No – 212(f) lets the President restrict entry, not impose taxes. |
| Did it follow the APA? | Did not strike it down on APA procedural grounds. | No – skipped public rulemaking; arbitrary and capricious. |
| Who won? | The government (the fee was left in effect). | The 20 states (the fee was vacated nationwide). |
| Current Status | On appeal. | Government is expected to appeal quickly. |
This is where it gets complicated and tricky. We do not know at this point which one would be interpreted by DHS/ USCIS. We need to wait and see.
Both court rulings are summary judgments. Because they directly conflict, the issue is more likely to move up to a higher court, maybe even the Supreme Court.
What are the Next Steps?
The current ruling from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) is a big win, but it is not the final word. Here is what to watch for:
- The government will likely appeal: The White House said it disagrees with the decision and is confident it will be reversed on appeal. They will likely appeal.
- A conflicting ruling already exists: The D.C. court earlier upheld a nearly identical fee in the Chamber of Commerce case, and that appeal is pending.
- A third case is pending: Unions and religious groups have filed a separate lawsuit in San Francisco, raising the chance of split rulings across three different appeals courts.
- A split may go to the top: Conflicting decisions across circuits make it more likely the issue ends up before the Supreme Court.
- The fee is set to expire in a few months: Remember, the Proclamation’s fee is scheduled to lapse around September 2026 unless it is extended.
We need to wait for USCIS/DHS guidance on what they will do in light of both of these conflicting decisions.
Common FAQs
It is not clear yet. The court vacated(canceled) the fee, but DHS has not yet issued any guidance on whether the ruling applies retroactively to payments that were already made.
Not necessarily. The fee has been vacated (canceled) for now, but the government is expected to appeal. An appeals court could put the ruling on hold (a stay) and allow the fee to be collected again while the case continues. Also, a different court in D.C. upheld a similar fee, so the final outcome is still uncertain.
It happens. Different federal district courts can interpret the law differently, and they are not bound by each other’s rulings. When such conflicts arise, the issue usually moves up to the appeals courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court may step in to settle the disagreement.
What do you think of the court ruling? Share your thoughts in comments section below.
Got laid off after years at a consultancy that treated H-1B applications like lottery scratch cards? Don’t worry—we’ve got a role for you.
We’re building a world-class housekeeping company and actively recruiting professionals with extensive experience in dealing with questionable messes.
Responsibilities include toilet cleaning, waste management, and the occasional ethics audit.
Company Motto: “Creating gold from filth—one cleanup at a time.”