Immigration

United States | Federal Judge blocks $100,000 fee for H-1B visas imposed by Trump Administration

Summary

The United States District Court for Massachusetts recently struck down a federal policy requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee when filing certain new H-1B visa petitions, finding that the executive branch exceeded its authority. The court determined that the fee functioned as a tax, which Congress did not authorize the President to impose under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and therefore violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles. The court also found that the implementing agencies failed to comply with required rulemaking procedures and acted beyond their statutory authority. As a result, the policy was declared unlawful and vacated in full, eliminating the additional payment requirement.

The detail

Background

In September 2025, the President issued the Presidential Proclamation on the Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Works (“the Proclamation”), introducing a major reform to the H-1B visa program. The Proclamation required a $100,000 fee payment for certain new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025. On October 20, 2025, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published guidance on procedures to enforce the H-1B fee mandated by the Proclamation and clarified the types of filings that are impacted.

The payment requirement applied to the following situations:

• New H-1B petitions filed on or after the effective date for beneficiaries who are outside the US and do not have a valid H-1B visa;
• New H-1B petitions filed on or after the effective date, where the petition requests consular notification, port-of-entry notification, or pre-flight inspection for a beneficiary inside the US; and
• H-1B petitions filed on or after the effective date that request a change of status, amendment, or extension of stay, and where USCIS determines that the beneficiary is ineligible.

The administration justified the proclamation as an attempt to deter abuse of the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program.

The ruling

Following the issuance of the proclamation, twenty (20) states filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of the policy and its implementation by federal agencies. The plaintiffs argued that the executive branch exceeded its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and violated constitutional and administrative law principles.

On June 8, 2026, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the policy in its entirety, finding that both the proclamation and its implementation were unlawful. The court specifically held the following:

• Lack of statutory authority: The President lacked authority under the INA to impose the $100,000 payment, which the court found functioned as a tax.
• Separation of powers violation: Congress, not the Executive, has the constitutional authority to levy taxes, and the INA does not delegate this power.
• Improper agency action: The implementing agencies exceeded their statutory authority by enforcing a payment that did not qualify as a cost-recovery fee.
• APA procedural violation: The agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the policy without notice-and-comment rulemaking.
• Arbitrary and capricious action: The agencies failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy, did not consider reliance interests, and did not justify bypassing standard procedures.

Accordingly, the court vacated and set aside the agency policy implementing the $100,000 fee requirement. The court also rejected the government’s argument to limit relief to the plaintiff states.  By vacating the policy, the ruling will apply to anyone impacted by the $100,000 fee rule. 

Key takeaway

As a result of this ruling, the $100,000 H‑1B payment requirement has been eliminated, and federal agencies are no longer permitted to enforce or collect the additional fee. Due to the possibility of an appeal (as well as a prior conflicting decision from the District of Columbia district court), employers should consult with immigration counsel for a more in-depth analysis of the impact of this decision.

Vialto will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as they become available. 

Contact us

For a deeper discussion on the above, please reach out to your Vialto Partners point of contact, or alternatively:

W. Marcus Hobson
Senior Associate Attorney

Want to know when a regional alert is posted?

Simply follow our Vialto Alerts page on LinkedIn and posts will be displayed on your feed. To ensure you don’t miss one, once you’re on our LinkedIn page, click on the bell icon under the banner image to manage your notifications.

Further information on Vialto can be found here: www.vialtopartners.com

Vialto Partners (“Vialto”) refers to wholly owned subsidiaries of CD&R Galaxy UK OpCo Limited as well as the other members of the Vialto Partners global network. The information contained in this document is for general guidance on matters of interest only. Vialto is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information is provided “as is”, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will Vialto, its related entities, or the agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this document or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

© 2026 Vialto Partners. All rights reserved.