The $100,000 H-1B fee lawsuit landscape is split. A federal judge in Boston struck down the fee on June 8, 2026, calling it an unconstitutional tax, but a limited administrative stay put the fee back in place while the government appeals to the First Circuit.1Clark Hill. $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Temporarily Reinstated A separate ruling in Washington, D.C. went the other way and upheld the fee, and a third case in California is still pending. As of mid-2026, whether an employer must pay depends on which appeal moves first.
What the Fee Covers
President Trump signed the proclamation “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” on September 19, 2025, invoking Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require a $100,000 payment with every new H-1B petition.2The White House. Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers It took effect September 21, 2025, for a 12-month term.
The charge applies only to new petitions for workers located outside the United States. Renewals, extensions, and petitions filed before the effective date are not covered.3Employment Law Worldview. Understanding the New $100,000 H-1B Fee and Its Effect on U.S. Employers The Secretary of Homeland Security can waive the fee where hiring is deemed “in the national interest,” but government guidance said such waivers would be “extraordinarily rare.”4American Hospital Association. Impact of H-1B Filing Fee on Health Care Workforce
The Three Lawsuits
Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (D.C.): Fee Upheld, Now on Appeal
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State on October 16, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.5U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce H-1B Complaint The Association of American Universities joined as a co-plaintiff on October 24, 2025.6U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce v. DHS The complaint argued that the proclamation “blatantly contravenes the fees Congress has set for the H-1B program” and that Section 212(f) “cannot directly contradict laws passed by Congress.”
On December 23, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted summary judgment for the government, concluding that “Congress could have, but did not, impose the limit on presidential authority that plaintiffs urge.”7Politico. Judge Ruling on Trump H-1B Visa Fee The Chamber appealed on December 29, 2025. The D.C. Circuit granted expedited briefing and heard oral argument on March 9, 2026.8Forbes. Businesses Try New Argument in Immigration Appeal on $100,000 H-1B Fee No decision had issued as of June 2026.9CourtListener. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. DHS
State of California v. Mullin (Massachusetts): Fee Struck Down
On December 12, 2025, a 20-state coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.10California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Sues Over Trump Administration’s Unlawful New $100K Fee for H-1B Visas The states argued the fee exceeded statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements, and amounted to an unconstitutional tax imposed without congressional approval.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin granted summary judgment for the states on June 8, 2026, vacating the fee with universal effect, meaning it was unenforceable for all employers rather than only those in plaintiff states.11NPR. Federal Judge Strikes Down Fee on H-1B Visas He found the fee “an unconstitutional tax levied without proper congressional authorization” and held that such a “highly consequential” charge required clear authorization from Congress that Section 212(f) did not supply.12Ogletree Deakins. Federal Court Vacates $100,000 H-1B Fee Requirement On APA grounds, he found the agencies had skipped notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded their fee-setting authority, and ignored the policy’s impact on education and healthcare.13Barnes & Thornburg. Federal Court Strikes Down $100,000 H-1B Payment Requirement
“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Judge Sorokin wrote.11NPR. Federal Judge Strikes Down Fee on H-1B Visas
Global Nurse Force v. Trump (California): Still Pending
The first suit was filed October 3, 2025, in the Northern District of California by a nurse staffing company, a church, unions, and a professors’ group. The complaint raised claims that the fee exceeded presidential authority, usurped Congress’s taxing power, violated the major questions doctrine, and was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.14Forbes. Immigration Questions and Lawsuit Cast Doubt on $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and nationwide class certification in December 2025, backed by an amicus brief from 22 state attorneys general.15Justice Action Center. GNF v. Trump – H1B Visas16California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Urges Court to Block Trump Administration’s Unlawful New Fee Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. heard oral arguments on both motions in February 2026 but had not ruled as of mid-2026.
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Mattered
A decision from a different case reshaped the H-1B fight. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.17SCOTUSblog. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said the Framers vested taxing power in Congress “alone” and that the statutory term “regulate” does not include the power to tax.18Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287
The Chamber’s counsel Adam G. Unikowsky pressed that reasoning at the D.C. Circuit on March 9, 2026, arguing the fee was revenue-raising and required clear congressional authorization it did not have.8Forbes. Businesses Try New Argument in Immigration Appeal on $100,000 H-1B Fee Three months later, Judge Sorokin adopted that framing in Boston.
Is the Fee In Effect Right Now?
Yes, temporarily. On June 12, 2026, Judge Sorokin denied the government’s request for a full stay pending appeal but granted a limited administrative stay that reinstates the fee while the government seeks relief from the First Circuit. The stay was conditioned on the government filing its motion in the First Circuit by June 18, 2026.1Clark Hill. $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Temporarily Reinstated The White House said it was “confident this order will be reversed on appeal.”11NPR. Federal Judge Strikes Down Fee on H-1B Visas
Two federal appeals courts now hold pieces of the answer. The D.C. Circuit is weighing whether to affirm Judge Howell’s ruling upholding the fee; the First Circuit will review Judge Sorokin’s ruling striking it down. The California case has yet to produce a merits ruling. The original proclamation was set to expire in September 2026, but the appeals could produce binding precedent on presidential power over immigration fees well beyond that expiration.
Legislation That Could Change the Picture
On March 17, 2026, Rep. Michael Lawler of New York introduced the H-1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act (H.R. 7961), which would exempt healthcare workers from the $100,000 fee and cap their costs at the existing statutory maximum of $1,500.19Rep. Lawler Official Website. H-1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act The bill has 47 cosponsors from both parties but has not moved beyond referral to the House Judiciary Committee.20GovTrack. H.R. 7961: H-1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 16, 2025, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said the fee would “hurt US innovation and exacerbate an already serious shortage of medical professionals.”21Roll Call. Trump’s H-1B Visa Move Comes After Congressional Inaction
Employers filing new petitions from abroad should plan around the fee for now and watch the First Circuit docket. A ruling there, or in the D.C. Circuit, will decide which of the two conflicting district court decisions controls, and whether the fee survives its 12-month term.