In a significant win for employers and foreign workers alike, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has blocked the Trump Administration's controversial $100,000 H-1B visa fee from being enforced — at least for now.
On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the Trump Administration's request to stay a federal district court judgment that vacated agency actions implementing the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.
As a result, the district court's order blocking the $100,000 H-1B fee should now take effect while the government's appeal continues, unless a later court order changes the posture.
The ruling marks a critical turning point in one of the most closely watched immigration cases in recent memory, with sweeping implications for U.S. employers, universities, hospitals, and the foreign professionals they seek to hire.
Background: The $100,000 Fee That Shook the H-1B Program
On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10973, which required employers to submit a $100,000 payment with H-1B petitions for foreign nationals located outside the United States.
The administration stated that the fee was intended to address perceived abuse of the H-1B program, and protect U.S. workers, specifically focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations.
Section 1(a) of Proclamation 10973 restricts the entry of individuals in H-1B status to the United States unless their employer's H-1B petition was filed (or supplemented) with a $100,000 payment, with limited exceptions.
Based on the USCIS/CBP guidance, the Proclamation does not affect individuals who are beneficiaries of petitions filed before the effective date, nor those who already hold valid H-1B visas.
The fee represented a dramatic departure from prior practice.
Previously, H-1B fees ran from $2,000 to $5,000, depending on the size of the employer, according to the American Immigration Council.
A company sponsoring 10 H-1B workers annually could face $1 million in additional expenses under the new fee structure.
The Legal Challenge: 20 States Take Action
Twenty states, led by California and Massachusetts, challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that the Administration exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The states also alleged that the policy would significantly impair their ability to recruit and retain highly skilled workers for public universities, educational institutions, and healthcare systems.
The impact was already being felt.
Workforce-constrained hospitals anticipated patient-care disruption; over 70% of surveyed AHA members flagged impact, and only 85 fees were paid nationwide by February 2026.
On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the states, finding the policy unlawful and vacating it in its entirety.
Judge Sorokin granted summary judgment for the states and vacated the policy under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), finding it exceeded statutory authority, was procedurally deficient, and was arbitrary and capricious.
The First Circuit's Decision
After the district court ruling, the government moved quickly.
The court granted in part the government's alternative request for an administrative stay, temporarily pausing the vacatur pending a decision by the First Circuit on an anticipated motion to stay.
The federal government escalated the matter on June 18 and filed an emergency motion to stay the judgment in the First Circuit, arguing that halting the collection of the fee immediately would cause irreparable harm to agency operations while the broader appeal is litigated.
On Friday, July 24, 2026, a three-judge panel for the First Circuit officially denied the government's emergency motion.
The court emphasized that when the executive branch claims discretionary authority to impose monetary financial burdens on regulated parties, Congress must explicitly and clearly delegate that authority. Because the Immigration and Nationality Act does not expressly grant this fee-imposing power under the statutes relied upon by the administration, the First Circuit declined to keep the $100,000 fee in place.
The appeals court found that the Trump administration was not likely to succeed in its argument that the district court ruling should be struck down.
The First Circuit also noted that the plaintiff states were likely to be substantially injured by the stay.
What This Means for Employers Right Now
As of July 24, 2026, employers do not have to pay the additional $100,000 H-1B payment because the district court vacated the policy and the First Circuit refused to restore it during the government's appeal.
Because the First Circuit denied the government's request, the district court's original order vacating the policy is reinstated nationwide, barring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from enforcing or collecting the $100,000 requirement at this time.
Extensions, amendments, or change-of-status filings for people already in the U.S. were never within the Proclamation's reach, which targeted individuals outside the United States, and should be unaffected.
However,
as of July 27, 2026, USCIS had not yet issued clean, updated public filing instructions reflecting the First Circuit's July 24 order, and some USCIS and Pay.gov pages concerning the $100,000 H-1B payment may still appear online.
Employers should not rely on outdated web pages and should confirm current agency intake behavior before filing.
The Road Ahead: A Circuit Split and the Supreme Court
This case is far from over.
The District of Massachusetts's holding starkly contradicts a conclusion reached in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the fee proclamation in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. The decision in that case is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit, which held oral argument in March 2026.
Given the conflict between this Massachusetts ruling and the decision out of the D.C. District Court last year that upheld the Presidential Proclamation imposing the fee, the circuit split suggests the constitutional question is bound for the Supreme Court.
"The government is expected to file an emergency application for a stay with the Supreme Court. Under the court's emergency shadow docket procedures, the justices could potentially issue a ruling on the stay [at any time]."
As one immigration attorney cautioned, "The $100,000 requirement could return if a higher court grants a stay, if the government ultimately wins the appeal, or if Congress passes legislation authorizing such a payment."
Practical Guidance for Employers and Applicants
Immigration attorneys are urging employers to treat this relief as provisional and to take several concrete steps:
-
Flag every consular-notification H-1B petition in your pipeline and confirm current USCIS/DOS intake behavior before filing without the payment.
-
Preserve records of any $100,000 payments already made, as clean documentation will matter if refunds become available.
-
Preserve optionality across categories (e.g., in-country change of status, L-1, O-1 where appropriate) and sequence filings deliberately while the law moves.
-
Stay close to counsel: the enforcement posture can change on short notice, including by Supreme Court action.
As one firm succinctly put it: the First Circuit did not settle whether the $100,000 payment is lawful — it settled who bears the risk while that question is decided.
The Bottom Line
For now, employers across the country can file H-1B petitions for overseas beneficiaries without the $100,000 payment.
For foreign professionals who were effectively priced out of the U.S. labor market, and for companies that paused pipelines or abandoned searches because of the fee, the court's decision signals that the $100,000 requirement is on shaky ground.
But the legal landscape remains volatile. With a circuit split in play, a merits appeal still pending, and the possibility of Supreme Court intervention, this story is likely to evolve rapidly.
Employers should continue monitoring developments closely, as a future appellate decision could affect H-1B filing requirements.
---
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how this ruling affects your specific situation, contact an experienced immigration attorney.