Blab Politics
Massachusetts Court Strikes Down Trump-Era $100,000 H-1B Fee, Administration Appeals
On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Boston vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee for certain H‑1B visa petitions. The decision, issued in State of California v. Noem, ended the fee that had been imposed by President Donald Trump’s Proclamation 10973 on September 21, 2025. The fee applied to new H‑1B petitions filed for beneficiaries who would be processed at U.S. consulates abroad.
The court found that the fee was not an immigration restriction but an unlawful tax. It held that the president lacked authority to impose such a tax and that the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to follow statutory procedures in implementing it. The ruling granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims, including constitutional, statutory, and APA grounds, and vacated the fee in its entirety.
The fee was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb perceived abuse of the H‑1B program and protect U.S. workers in STEM occupations. The fee was announced in a proclamation issued on September 19, 2025, and became effective two days later. It was intended to raise revenue and deter employers from filing petitions for foreign workers who might otherwise be hired domestically.
Following the Massachusetts ruling, the administration filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals on June 11, 2026. On June 12, the administration requested and the court granted a stay of the district court’s order pending the appeal. The stay’s scope is unclear, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not issued guidance on whether it will continue to collect the fee.
The Massachusetts decision contrasts sharply with a ruling in the District of Columbia. In that case, the court upheld the fee in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. That decision is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit, which held oral argument in March 2026. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit challenging the fee, filed by healthcare organizations, labor unions, and educational institutions, remains pending in the District of California.
The split decisions create a circuit split that could prompt a Supreme Court review. The court’s involvement would resolve whether the fee is a permissible tax or an unconstitutional restriction on immigration. Until a final decision is reached, employers and petitioners face uncertainty about whether the fee will be applied to new H‑1B petitions.
The legal battle is part of a broader pattern of challenges to Trump‑era immigration policies. The fee’s removal is significant for employers who had begun to budget for the additional cost. The decision also signals that courts are willing to scrutinize executive actions that raise revenue without congressional authorization.
The administration’s appeal will be heard by the First Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the Massachusetts district court. The court may issue a decision within weeks, but the stay could remain in effect until a higher court resolves the matter. USCIS has not yet announced whether it will refund fees that were collected after the proclamation’s effective date.
The outcome of this case will have implications for the H‑1B program’s financial structure and for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in immigration policy. Employers, immigration attorneys, and foreign workers are watching closely as the legal process unfolds.
The next steps will depend on the First Circuit’s ruling and any subsequent actions by the D.C. Circuit. If the Supreme Court takes the case, a decision could be expected in the 2027 term. Until then, the status of the $100,000 fee remains in flux, and stakeholders are advised to monitor USCIS announcements and court filings for updates.
The court found that the fee was not an immigration restriction but an unlawful tax. It held that the president lacked authority to impose such a tax and that the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to follow statutory procedures in implementing it. The ruling granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims, including constitutional, statutory, and APA grounds, and vacated the fee in its entirety.
The fee was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb perceived abuse of the H‑1B program and protect U.S. workers in STEM occupations. The fee was announced in a proclamation issued on September 19, 2025, and became effective two days later. It was intended to raise revenue and deter employers from filing petitions for foreign workers who might otherwise be hired domestically.
Following the Massachusetts ruling, the administration filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals on June 11, 2026. On June 12, the administration requested and the court granted a stay of the district court’s order pending the appeal. The stay’s scope is unclear, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not issued guidance on whether it will continue to collect the fee.
The Massachusetts decision contrasts sharply with a ruling in the District of Columbia. In that case, the court upheld the fee in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. That decision is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit, which held oral argument in March 2026. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit challenging the fee, filed by healthcare organizations, labor unions, and educational institutions, remains pending in the District of California.
The split decisions create a circuit split that could prompt a Supreme Court review. The court’s involvement would resolve whether the fee is a permissible tax or an unconstitutional restriction on immigration. Until a final decision is reached, employers and petitioners face uncertainty about whether the fee will be applied to new H‑1B petitions.
The legal battle is part of a broader pattern of challenges to Trump‑era immigration policies. The fee’s removal is significant for employers who had begun to budget for the additional cost. The decision also signals that courts are willing to scrutinize executive actions that raise revenue without congressional authorization.
The administration’s appeal will be heard by the First Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the Massachusetts district court. The court may issue a decision within weeks, but the stay could remain in effect until a higher court resolves the matter. USCIS has not yet announced whether it will refund fees that were collected after the proclamation’s effective date.
The outcome of this case will have implications for the H‑1B program’s financial structure and for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in immigration policy. Employers, immigration attorneys, and foreign workers are watching closely as the legal process unfolds.
The next steps will depend on the First Circuit’s ruling and any subsequent actions by the D.C. Circuit. If the Supreme Court takes the case, a decision could be expected in the 2027 term. Until then, the status of the $100,000 fee remains in flux, and stakeholders are advised to monitor USCIS announcements and court filings for updates.
