On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a significant decision vacating the Presidential Proclamation that imposed a $100,000 fee on employers filing petitions for new H-1B visas. The ruling, issued by Judge Leo T. Sorokin, grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidates the policy on legal grounds.
Background on the H-1B Visa Program
The H-1B visa program, established by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), permits U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. The program has long served as a critical mechanism for U.S. businesses, educational institutions, and healthcare providers to address workforce shortages in highly skilled fields.
On September 19, 2025, a Presidential Proclamation introduced a new requirement mandating that employers pay a $100,000 fee when petitioning for certain new H-1Bs. A coalition of states filed suit, challenging the policy and its implementation by federal agencies.
The Court’s Decision
In its June 8, 2026 Memorandum and Order, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff states, holding that the $100,000 H-1B fee was unlawful.
The court concluded that the administration’s implementation of the fee exceeded executive authority and violated governing legal principles, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional separation of powers. The decision emphasized that Congress—not the Executive Branch—holds the authority to impose taxes or fees of this magnitude in the immigration context.
Key Legal Findings
The court’s ruling centers on several critical findings:
- Unauthorized Tax/Fee: The $100,000 payment requirement functioned effectively as a tax, which cannot be imposed absent clear congressional authorization.
- Separation of Powers Violation: By creating a substantial monetary requirement without legislative approval, the policy infringed upon Congress’s constitutional authority over immigration and taxation.
- Administrative Procedure Act Violations: The implementation of the fee did not comply with required rulemaking and procedural standards under the APA.
These findings collectively led the court to vacate the policy in its entirety. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will appeal the decision. If appealed, the case could proceed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of these courts could reinstate the fee.
Practical Implications
The decision has immediate implications for employers and foreign nationals relying on the H-1B program:
- Elimination of the $100,000 Fee: While the ruling is in effect, employers have the option to submit H-1B petitions that would have been subject to the fee without including the fee.
- Restoration of Prior Framework: The ruling effectively restores the H-1B program to its pre-Proclamation cost structure, based on existing statutory filing fees.
- Questions regarding fees already paid: If the ruling stands and the fee remains vacated, employers who already paid the fee may be able to seek refunds and should stand by for more information on how to do so.
Clark Hill will continue to monitor developments in this case and provide updates as they become available.
Please contact a member of Clark Hill’s Immigration Law practice with any questions and subscribe to our newsletter to receive future Immigration Law alerts directly to your inbox.
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.