In a significant victory for employers, foreign talent, and the rule of law, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has struck down the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 payment requirement for new H-1B petitions.
In State of California et al. v. Mullin et al., Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled on June 8, 2026, that the administration lacked legal authority to impose the payment and that the agencies responsible for implementing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Background
In September 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring employers to pay an additional $100,000 when filing new H-1B petitions. A coalition of twenty states challenged the policy, arguing that neither the President nor federal agencies had the authority to create such a requirement without congressional approval.
The states also argued that the policy would make it substantially more difficult and expensive for public institutions—including schools, universities, research centers, and healthcare systems—to recruit highly skilled foreign workers.
Key Findings of the Court
States Had Standing to Challenge the Policy
The court found that the states demonstrated concrete harm. Evidence showed that the $100,000 payment would increase costs and worsen staffing shortages for public employers that rely on H-1B professionals, particularly in education, research, and healthcare.
The Courts Can Review the Policy
The government argued that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability prevented judicial review. Judge Sorokin disagreed, noting that the states were not challenging individual visa decisions. Instead, they were challenging the legality of the policy itself and whether the executive branch exceeded its authority.
The President Lacked Authority to Impose the Payment
This was the court’s central holding.
The administration relied on sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allow the President to suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens in certain circumstances.
The court concluded that these provisions do not authorize the President to impose a $100,000 payment on H-1B petitions. While Congress granted the President authority over entry restrictions, it did not authorize the creation of what the court repeatedly characterized as a tax.
Agencies Violated the Administrative Procedure Act
USCIS, the Department of State, and other agencies implemented the requirement through guidance documents, FAQs, website updates, and payment systems without engaging in the notice-and-comment rulemaking process required by the APA.
The court held that these actions created binding legal obligations and therefore constituted legislative rules. Because the agencies bypassed the required rulemaking procedures, the implementation was unlawful.
The court also rejected the government’s attempts to rely on the APA’s foreign affairs and good-cause exceptions.
Agencies Exceeded Their Statutory Authority
The court further found that no statute authorized federal agencies to impose a $100,000 charge on H-1B petitions.
While Congress permits USCIS to collect filing fees that recover administrative costs, the court noted that the government itself acknowledged that the $100,000 payment was not designed to cover adjudication expenses. As a result, the agencies acted beyond the authority granted to them by Congress.
Why This Matters
This decision is important not only for employers and H-1B professionals, but also for the broader principle that major changes to immigration policy must be grounded in statutory authority and implemented through lawful procedures.
For months, employers, universities, hospitals, and highly skilled workers faced