On June 8, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a landmark ruling in State of California et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et al., vacating the $100,000 supplemental payment requirement that had been imposed on H-1B petitions since September 21, 2025. The decision carries immediate and far-reaching consequences for U.S. employers, sponsoring companies, and the foreign national professionals they employ.
What Was the $100,000 H-1B Payment Requirement?
On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10973, which added a $100,000 payment obligation to all new H-1B petitions. The Proclamation cited INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a) as the statutory basis for the requirement, framing the payment as a measure to curb program abuse and protect the American labor market. USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of State moved swiftly to implement the requirement through internal memoranda, FAQ documents, and updated fee schedules. Prior to the Proclamation, total H-1B petition fees had ranged between approximately $960 and $7,595 in statutory and regulatory fees.
The Court’s Core Finding: An Unauthorized Tax
The court’s central holding is that the $100,000 payment constitutes a tax, not a restriction on entry. Under the Constitution, the power to lay and collect taxes rests exclusively with Congress. The President does not hold that power independently and may exercise it only when Congress has clearly delegated it through statute.
The court examined INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a) closely and concluded that neither provision delegates taxing authority to the President. The statutory language authorizes the President to impose “restrictions,” “rules,” “regulations,” and “limitations” on the entry of noncitizens. None of those terms, by their ordinary legal meaning, encompasses the power to tax. The court drew directly on the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026), which held that similarly broad regulatory language in the IEEPA did not confer the power to impose tariffs as taxes.
Because the $100,000 payment is a tax imposed without congressional delegation, the Proclamation exceeded the President’s statutory and constitutional authority. The court further found that the agency materials implementing the payment requirement were unlawful legislative rules that should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The agencies also failed to consider the significant reliance interests of employers who had structured their hiring around the existing fee framework, and offered no reasoned explanation for the policy’s drastic cost increase.
What the Court Ordered
The court allowed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff states on all four counts, declared the Policy unlawful, and vacated it in its entirety. The $100,000 payment requirement is no longer in effect as of this ruling. Employers no longer face the payment obligation for petitions going forward, and the court declined to limit relief to any specific set of parties.
The Government’s Response
The Department of Justice has stated its commitment to continuing to protect American workers and indicated it fully supports the administration’s position on the H-1B program. The DOJ pointed to an earlier ruling in a separate challenge to the Proclamation in which the administration prevailed, signaling that it views this as an ongoing legal dispute rather than a settled matter. Employers and foreign nationals should treat an appeal as a realistic near-term development and maintain contingency planning accordingly.
What This Means for Your H-1B Strategy
For sponsoring employers and their foreign national employees, this ruling restores the pre-Proclamation fee structure. It also reaffirms that executive action in the immigration space, however broad in scope, is constrained by the Constitution’s separation of powers. Employers who paused H-1B petition filings or altered workforce planning in response to the $100,000 requirement should consult with immigration counsel to assess the impact on pending and planned petitions.
At Ahluwalia Law Offices, PC, we are monitoring any government appeal or legislative response to this ruling in real time. Our team represents employers and foreign national professionals throughout the H-1B lifecycle, from initial petition through consular processing and extensions. We are available to advise on how this decision affects your specific circumstances.
Schedule a consultation at ahluwalialaw.com/consultations or call our Dallas office at 972-361-0606 or our Houston office at 713-600-4338.
FAQ: The $100,000 H-1B Fee Ruling
What did the court rule on June 8, 2026?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the $100,000 H-1B supplemental payment requirement established by Presidential Proclamation 10973, finding it constituted an unconstitutional tax imposed without congressional delegation.
Is the $100,000 H-1B fee still in effect?
No. The court vacated the Policy implementing the payment requirement in its entirety. Employers filing new H-1B petitions are no longer subject to the $100,000 obligation as a result of this ruling, pending any appeal.
Why did the court say this was a tax and not a fee?
The court applied the framework from National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and the Supreme Court’s 2026 Learning Resources decision, concluding that the $100,000 payment lacked characteristics of a penalty and instead raised revenue in the manner of a tax. Because Congress did not clearly delegate taxing authority through the relevant INA provisions, the payment exceeded the President’s authority.
Could the government appeal this decision?
Yes, and an appeal is expected. The Department of Justice has stated its continued support for the administration’s position and pointed to a separate district court ruling that upheld the Proclamation. Employers should treat a First Circuit appeal as a near-term probability and work with immigration counsel to assess how that timeline affects pending and planned petitions.
What fees apply to H-1B petitions now?
The statutory and regulatory fee structure in place before September 21, 2025 governs. This includes the USCIS filing fee, the fraud prevention fee, and applicable training fees. Your immigration attorney can confirm the current fee schedule for your petition type.
Does this ruling affect H-1B extensions and amendments?
The Proclamation had applied the $100,000 payment to certain change of status, amendment, and extension petitions where USCIS determined the beneficiary was ineligible. With the Policy vacated, those additional obligations no longer apply under the current ruling.
This blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Ahluwalia Law Offices, PC. The legal information provided herein may not apply to your individual circumstances and is subject to change based on evolving immigration laws and policies. Readers are strongly encouraged to consult directly with a qualified immigration attorney for guidance tailored to their specific situation. Our front desk staff is not authorized to interpret legal information or provide legal advice beyond what is explicitly stated in this blog. They are also not permitted to assess eligibility, review case details, or respond to case-specific inquiries. Due to the high volume of inquiries and the sensitive nature of immigration matters, we cannot respond to questions or requests for legal analysis via phone or email unless a formal consultation has been scheduled. Please book an appointment with one of our attorneys if you require personalized legal assistance. This is attorney advertising
