In a significant development on Monday, June 8, 2026, a federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B petitions was unlawful and vacated the policy implementing it in its entirety. The decision provides immediate relief to employers and foreign nationals who were concerned that the new payment would make many H-1B filings financially impossible. US District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts invalidated the policy, finding that the administration exceeded its authority when it attempted to impose the charge through executive action.
The payment requirement caused significant concern in the employment-based immigration community when it was announced in September 2025 by Presidential Proclamation. In broad terms, the policy would have required certain employers filing new H-1B petitions to pay an additional $100,000 for the sponsored foreign national. For many employers, this would have been a dramatic increase over the existing government filing fees and could have made H-1B sponsorship impractical or unavailable.
By way of background, the H-1B visa category allows U.S. employers to sponsor foreign nationals for professional roles that generally require at least a bachelor’s degree in a specific field. The H-1B program is used by employers in many industries, including technology, healthcare, education, engineering, finance, research, and the arts. Employers already pay substantial government filing fees, and in many cases legal fees, to sponsor H-1B employees. The challenged policy would have added a separate $100,000 payment requirement on top of those existing costs.
The policy was challenged in court by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general, who argued that the administration lacked the legal authority to impose such a substantial financial burden on employers without congressional approval. The states also argued that the policy would harm public employers and institutions that rely on H-1B workers, including universities, schools, research institutions, and healthcare systems.
In his ruling, Judge Sorokin concluded that the payment functioned as a tax rather than a permissible administrative fee. The court noted that “the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called.” This distinction matters. A government filing fee is generally tied to the cost of administering or processing a benefit request. A tax, by contrast, is a broader revenue-raising measure. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to impose taxes. The court found that Congress had not delegated that taxing power to the President through the immigration statutes relied on by the administration.
Because the Constitution gives Congress, not the executive branch, the authority to impose taxes, the court determined that the administration’s action exceeded the authority granted by law. The court also found that the agencies’ implementation of the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, commonly known as the APA. In practical terms, the APA requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures and provide reasoned explanations when they take major regulatory action. Here, the court found that the agencies had not adequately explained the new $100,000 payment requirement or considered important reliance interests, including the impact on employers that had structured hiring and sponsorship plans around the existing H-1B rules.
The ruling vacates the agency policy implementing the $100,000 payment requirement and provides relief to employers that utilize the H-1B program to hire highly skilled foreign professionals. The court did not issue a separate permanent injunction because it concluded that vacating the policy provided complete relief. For employers, the practical result is that the $100,000 payment requirement is not currently in effect. Had the payment requirement remained in place, it would have significantly increased the cost of sponsoring H-1B workers and potentially affected employers’ hiring decisions.
At this time, employers filing H-1B petitions are not required to pay the additional $100,000 payment. However, the administration may seek to appeal the decision, and further litigation is possible. It is also possible that the administration could attempt to pursue a different policy approach in the future. Employers should therefore view this decision as an important and favorable development, but not necessarily the final word on H-1B reform or future efforts to restrict the program through higher costs or additional requirements. We will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available regarding this ruling.