← Resources
JustiGuide Insights · Litigation · H-1B / employment visas

The $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Struck Down (2026)

A federal appeals court refused to keep the $100,000 H-1B fee alive while the government appeals, letting a lower-court ruling that wiped out the fee nationwide take effect. The fee only ever applied to petitions for workers outside the U.S. — and the fight is not over.

1ST CIR. · JULY 2026State of California, et al. v. Mullin, et al.No. 26-01699 (1st Cir.) · D. Mass. (Sorokin, J.)U.S. Court of Appeals for the First CircuitDecided July 2026 · First Circuit denies stay

Executive summary

In September 2025, Proclamation 10973 required employers to pay $100,000 when filing certain new H-1B petitions — specifically, petitions for workers who were outside the United States. On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the fee unlawful and vacated it nationwide, holding that a payment of that size is a tax, and only Congress can impose a tax.

The government appealed and obtained a brief administrative pause, so the fee kept being collected through June and July. In July 2026, the First Circuit denied the government's request to keep the fee in place during the appeal, finding the government had not shown it was likely to win.

In practice: the district court's order invalidating the fee should now take effect, and USCIS should stop collecting it. USCIS is expected to publish updated filing instructions, which may take several days — creating a short gap between what the courts have ordered and what the filing system will accept.

What it does not mean: the case is not over. A separate federal court in Washington, D.C. reached the opposite conclusion and upheld the fee; that split is working its way up, and the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the question.

Refunds are unresolved. Employers who paid $100,000 between September 2025 and July 2026 have no announced refund process — no confirmed mechanism, administrator, or deadline yet.

What happened, in plain English

A 2025 presidential proclamation put a $100,000 price tag on filing certain new H-1B petitions. It was much narrower than the headlines suggested: it applied when the petition was filed on or after September 21, 2025 AND either the worker was outside the United States without a valid H-1B visa, or the petition asked for consular notification, port-of-entry notification, or preflight inspection.

It did NOT apply to petitions filed before that cutoff, to people who already held a valid unexpired H-1B visa, or to change-of-status, extension, or amendment petitions for people already in the U.S. That last category is the big one — most first-time cap H-1B petitions are filed for students already here changing from F-1, and those were never covered.

A coalition of twenty states sued in Massachusetts. On June 8, 2026, the court agreed with them on every theory: the charge is really a tax (which only Congress can levy), the agency skipped the required notice-and-comment rulemaking (an APA violation), and nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes a charge like this. The court threw out the policy nationwide.

Winning and actually stopping the fee turned out to be two different things. Four days later the same judge granted the government a brief pause so the appeals court could weigh in, and the fee snapped back for about six weeks. In July 2026 the First Circuit refused to extend that pause — removing the legal basis for continued collection.

This is general information, not legal advice, and it describes active litigation that can move quickly. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts — confirm your specific situation with a licensed immigration attorney.

What the Court held

  • The $100,000 charge is, in substance, a tax — and the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, not the President. (D. Mass., June 8, 2026.)
  • The guidance implementing the fee — memos, website instructions, FAQs, fee schedules — was issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking and without adequate justification, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
  • No provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes a charge of this kind; the policy exceeded statutory authority.
  • The district court vacated the policy in its entirety, nationwide, rather than limiting relief to the states that sued.
  • The First Circuit denied the government's motion to stay that vacatur pending appeal, finding the government had not shown a likelihood of success — lifting the administrative pause that had kept the fee in effect.
  • The fee, throughout, applied only to petitions for beneficiaries outside the U.S. (or requesting consular notification) — never to change-of-status, extension, or amendment petitions for people already in the United States.