Passim

Issues › Employment and student visas

The $100,000 H-1B payment

Blocked

Payment implementation set aside

One district court upheld it; appeals pending in the First, Ninth and D.C. Circuits

The District of Massachusetts vacated the agency policies imposing the $100,000 payment on June 8, 2026, and the First Circuit denied a stay pending appeal on July 24. On September 30 the Northern District of California vacated the agencies' policies under both proclamations and barred enforcing them until notice-and-comment rulemaking. Neither invalidated the proclamations themselves. The District of Columbia upheld the payment in another case, a district-court ruling, not a circuit split; its appeal was argued in March 2026. Global Nurse Force: stay of district proceedings denied October 28.

Status as of
November 2, 2026
Dockets checked
November 3, 2026

The policy

Proclamation 10973 (September 19, 2025) requires a $100,000 payment with new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States, and Proclamation 11069 (September 18, 2026) extended it to September 21, 2027. DHS and the State Department carried it out through memos, FAQs, a fee schedule and a payment website. Twenty states led by California challenged that implementation in the District of Massachusetts, and employers, unions, schools and religious organizations led by Global Nurse Force sued in the Northern District of California. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities challenged the proclamation and its implementation in the District of Columbia, which upheld the payment; that case is on appeal.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

CourtRulingCaseNote
D. Mass. Ruled against the policy State of California v. MullinNo. 1:25-cv-13829 / 26-1699 · Jun 8, 2026 Summary judgment for 20 states on all four claims: the policy levies a tax without a delegation from Congress, exceeds the agencies' statutory authority, skipped notice and comment, and is arbitrary and capricious. Policy vacated; appeal is First Circuit No. 26-1699.
1st Cir. Stay denied pending appealStay ruling State of California v. MullinNo. 1:25-cv-13829 / 26-1699 · Jul 24, 2026 A stay ruling, not a merits decision: denied a stay pending appeal because the government hadn't made a strong showing it is likely to succeed. The merits appeal is pending.
N.D. Cal. Ruled against the policyPreliminary ruling Global Nurse Force v. TrumpNo. 4:25-cv-08454 · Sep 30, 2026 Preliminary relief: the agency policies are likely arbitrary and capricious and needed notice-and-comment rulemaking and regulatory flexibility analysis. Proclamations not enjoined. Appeal is Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667.
D.D.C. Upheld the policy Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 1:25-cv-03675 / 25-5473 · Dec 23, 2025 Granted the government summary judgment: the Proclamation rests on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) and isn't ultra vires, and the agencies' implementing actions don't violate the APA. Appeal is D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473, argued March 2026.

Who's covered

  • Everywhere the policy applies

    The Massachusetts judgment vacates ten listed DHS and State Department actions "insofar as they impose a $100,000 payment obligation on H-1B petitions." The court refused to limit relief to the plaintiff states, explaining that vacatur "is a remedy targeted at an agency's unlawful action, rather than one limited to the particular parties in a given case," and declared the policy "VACATED in its entirety." The listed actions date from September and October 2025.

    Source

  • Everywhere the policy applies

    The California order vacates and remands the agency policies and enjoins the agency defendants "from enforcing or implementing the Agency Policies made pursuant to or in implementation of Proclamation No. 10973 and its extension in Proclamation No. 11069, until notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA and regulatory flexibility analyses under the RFA have been conducted." The court rejected the government's request to limit relief to the plaintiffs, did not enjoin the proclamations, and denied provisional class certification without prejudice.

    Source

For practitioners

  • On June 12, 2026 the Massachusetts court denied a stay pending appeal but stayed its own order administratively "pending a decision" by the First Circuit on the government's stay motion, provided the motion was filed by June 18 (Doc. 113). The First Circuit denied that motion on July 24. The government's merits appeal, No. 26-1699, is pending; this page doesn't yet have its briefing or argument schedule. [1][2]
  • Global Nurse Force: the government appealed the September 30 order on October 9, 2026 (Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667). The Ninth Circuit's schedule sets the opening brief for November 6 and the answering brief for December 4, with an optional reply 21 days after the answering brief. The district docket and the parties' October 20 joint statement don't mention a request to the Ninth Circuit to stay the order. [1][2][3]
  • A minute entry filed October 28, 2026 (ECF 144) records denial of the government’s motion to stay district proceedings. It contains conflicting conference and administrative-record deadline text, so those scheduling dates remain unverified pending clarification. This is a procedural ruling and does not stay the September 30 preliminary relief. [1]
  • Chamber of Commerce v. DHS: the District of Columbia granted the government summary judgment on December 23, 2025, and the plaintiffs appealed (D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473). The court's recording of the argument is in its March 2026 archive, and the parties' October 20, 2026 filing in Global Nurse Force gives the date as March 9. No decision has been found. [1][2][3][4]
  • Proclamation 11069 extended the payment requirement for 12 months, to 12:00 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2027. The California order expressly covers agency policies implementing both proclamations; the Massachusetts judgment lists ten specific agency actions issued in September and October 2025. [1][2][3]

In plain language

In September 2025 the President ordered that employers pay $100,000 with new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States, and in September 2026 he extended that order for another year. Federal courts in Massachusetts and California have set aside the government's rules for collecting the payment, and an appeals court refused to put the Massachusetts ruling on hold while the government appeals. A court in Washington, D.C. upheld the payment in a different case, which is also on appeal. These rulings can still change. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to a particular petition.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. Court denied government’s request to stay district proceedings

    Global Nurse Force v. Trump · N.D. Cal. · Source

  2. Ninth Circuit assigned appeal number and preliminary-injunction briefing schedule

    Global Nurse Force v. Trump · N.D. Cal. · Source

  3. Government requested stay of district proceedings

    Global Nurse Force v. Trump · N.D. Cal. · Source

  4. Government appealed H-1B fee preliminary-relief order

    Global Nurse Force v. Trump · N.D. Cal. · Source

  5. Court granted partial preliminary relief against H-1B fee implementation

    Global Nurse Force v. Trump · N.D. Cal. · Source

  6. First Circuit denied stay of H-1B fee vacatur

    State of California v. Mullin · D. Mass. · Source

  7. Defendants moved to stay the vacatur pending appeal

    State of California v. Mullin · D. Mass. · Source

  8. Defendants appealed to the First Circuit

    State of California v. Mullin · D. Mass. · Source

  9. District court vacated H-1B fee policy

    State of California v. Mullin · D. Mass. · Source

  11. Court granted the government summary judgment and upheld the payment

    Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D.D.C. · Source

  12. States challenged $100,000 H-1B petition fee

    State of California v. Mullin · D. Mass. · Source

Show all 13

  1. Chamber of Commerce and AAU sued over the $100,000 H-1B payment

    Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · D.D.C. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since December 23, 2025, each with the order behind it.

  • Payment implementation set aside. N.D. Cal. vacated and enjoined the agency policies under both proclamations Source
  • Set aside by a federal court. The First Circuit denied a stay pending appeal Source
  • Vacatur temporarily stayed. D. Mass. administratively stayed its judgment pending the First Circuit's stay ruling (Doc. 113); the June 12 date is from the docket entry Source
  • Set aside by a federal court. D. Mass. vacated the agency policies imposing the payment (Docs. 106, 107) Source
  • In effect; upheld by one court. D.D.C. granted the government summary judgment in Chamber of Commerce v. DHS Source

Cases (3)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
State of California v. MullinNo. 1:25-cv-13829 / 26-1699 · Lead caseD. Mass.First Circuit denied stay of $100,000 H-1B fee vacaturJul 24, 2026
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 1:25-cv-03675 / 25-5473D.D.C.Court upheld the $100,000 H-1B payment; D.C. Circuit appeal argued in March 2026 and pendingOct 31, 2026
Global Nurse Force v. TrumpNo. 4:25-cv-08454N.D. Cal.Court denied stay of district proceedings in H-1B payment challengeOct 28, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation