Federal Court Vacates $100,000 H-1B Fee Policy
On September 30, 2026, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued its decision in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, challenging the implementation of the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.
US District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted preliminary relief to employers and organizations challenging the policy, finding that they were likely to succeed on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The court found that federal agencies had implemented the payment requirement without completing the required notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
It also identified deficiencies in the agencies’ consideration of the policy’s impact, including the consequences for affected employers and small businesses.
The court rejected the government’s position that the agency policies were merely interpretive guidance that could be implemented without formal rulemaking.
The court vacated the implementing agency policies and prohibited their enforcement until the agencies complete the required notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act and regulatory flexibility analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Importantly, the decision does not invalidate the presidential proclamations themselves. It concerns the legality of the agency policies used to implement and enforce the payment requirement.
The ruling therefore prevents enforcement of the existing policies but does not permanently remove the possibility of an additional H-1B charge.
Background to the $100,000 H-1B Fee Dispute
The $100,000 payment requirement was introduced through Presidential Proclamation 10973 in September 2025.
The measure restricted the entry of certain H-1B workers unless the sponsoring employer made an additional $100,000 payment, subject to the terms and exceptions of the proclamation.
The payment requirement primarily affected new H-1B petitions involving beneficiaries outside the United States, subject to the proclamation’s terms and exceptions. It was not a general increase to the ordinary H-1B filing fee schedule.
The policy was challenged in several federal courts, with differing outcomes.
In December 2025, a federal district court in Washington, DC upheld the administration’s authority to introduce the payment requirement. That decision was appealed.
In June 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts reached a different conclusion, finding that the agency policies implementing the payment requirement were unlawful and vacating them.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit subsequently refused the government’s request to suspend the Massachusetts ruling while the appeal continued.
On September 18, 2026, the administration extended the original presidential proclamation for another 12 months, through September 21, 2027.
The California decision on September 30 provides a further ruling against the implementation of the payment requirement.
The litigation has therefore produced conflicting judicial conclusions concerning the government’s authority and the procedures required to introduce the fee. Further appellate proceedings could change the current position.
Is the $100,000 H-1B Fee Still in Effect?
As of October 13, 2026, the agency policies implementing the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement have been vacated and the payment is not currently enforceable under those policies.
The September 30 court order reinforces the earlier Massachusetts decision, which had already prevented federal agencies from enforcing the requirement.
Employers filing H-1B petitions are therefore not currently required to make the additional $100,000 payment under the invalidated policies.
The administration has appealed the earlier adverse ruling, and the underlying presidential proclamations remain in place. The government may also seek to establish a payment requirement through revised agency action or formal rulemaking.
Employers should distinguish the blocked $100,000 payment from the ordinary statutory and regulatory fees that continue to apply to H-1B petitions.
The court decisions do not suspend the H-1B program’s existing eligibility requirements, filing procedures or employer compliance obligations.
Could a New $103,265 H-1B Fee Be Introduced?
A separate DHS proposal could introduce another substantial additional cost for H-1B sponsorship.
On August 25, 2026, DHS published a proposed rule establishing a $103,265 fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced degree exemption.
The proposed charge would be payable when the H-1B petition is filed and would be additional to existing statutory and regulatory fees.
Unlike the $100,000 payment introduced through the presidential proclamation, the $103,265 proposal is being pursued through the federal rulemaking process.
The public comment period closed on September 24, 2026. The proposed fee has not taken effect and is not currently payable.
How Would the Proposed Fee Differ from the Blocked $100,000 Payment?
The two measures have different legal mechanisms and potentially different effects on employers.
The original $100,000 payment requirement was primarily directed at certain new H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States.
The proposed $103,265 fee would instead apply to cap-subject H-1B petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption.
The proposed fee would apply to H-1B petitions subject to the annual numerical cap, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption. Petitions qualifying for an exemption from the annual cap would not be subject to the proposed additional charge.
Importantly, the proposed charge is not limited to overseas recruitment. As drafted, it could also affect cap-subject petitions involving applicants already in the United States, including those requesting a change to H-1B status.
The proposed fee would therefore affect a different population of H-1B applications from the original payment requirement.
DHS has estimated that the proposal could generate approximately $8.8 billion annually, based on an assumed 85,000 affected petitions.
Whether the proposed fee is introduced, and in what form, will depend on the outcome of the rulemaking process and any subsequent legal challenges.
What Does the Court Ruling Mean for H-1B Employers and Workers?
The immediate effect of the court decisions is to remove the current requirement for employers to pay the additional $100,000 charge under the invalidated agency policies.
For businesses that had suspended or reconsidered overseas recruitment because of the payment requirement, the ruling may provide an opportunity to reassess those plans.
However, the position remains subject to further legal developments. Employers should consider the timing of proposed hires and the potential consequences of a change in the rules before committing to recruitment arrangements that depend on future H-1B sponsorship.
Employers Recruiting from Overseas
Employers can currently assess new overseas H-1B recruitment without including the blocked $100,000 payment as a filing requirement.
Ordinary H-1B eligibility criteria, petition fees, labor condition requirements and consular procedures continue to apply.
Where recruitment plans had been delayed specifically because of the additional payment, employers may wish to review whether those plans remain commercially and operationally viable.
Employers Planning Future H-1B Sponsorship
The separate $103,265 proposal creates a further consideration for employers expecting to file cap-subject petitions.
If introduced in its proposed form, the fee would materially increase the cost of certain H-1B sponsorship arrangements, including potentially those involving workers already employed in the United States under another immigration status.
Employers should therefore avoid assuming that recruitment strategies developed to manage the original overseas-focused payment would necessarily avoid exposure to the proposed fee.
Existing H-1B Workers and Prospective Applicants
The court ruling does not alter the underlying conditions of H-1B status or change the eligibility requirements for obtaining H-1B classification.
Existing H-1B workers must continue to comply with their approved terms of employment and applicable immigration requirements.
For prospective applicants, the removal of the current payment requirement does not guarantee petition approval, visa issuance or admission to the United States.
The implications will depend on the proposed employment, the applicant’s location and immigration status, the type of H-1B petition being filed and the rules in effect at the relevant time.
NNU Immigration Attorney Insight
The court rulings provide meaningful relief for employers, but the larger problem is the lack of certainty over future H-1B sponsorship costs.
The $100,000 payment is currently unenforceable under the vacated agency policies, yet the underlying presidential proclamations remain in place and litigation is continuing. At the same time, DHS is pursuing a separate $103,265 charge through formal rulemaking.
Employers should pay particular attention to the different scope of the proposed fee. The original payment requirement was primarily associated with recruiting H-1B workers from overseas. The new proposal targets cap-subject petitions more broadly, potentially including workers already in the United States.
For businesses relying on international recruitment, the distinction could have substantial financial consequences. An employer might restructure recruitment to avoid the original payment requirement, only to find that the proposed fee would still apply.
The immediate decision is therefore not simply whether to proceed with H-1B sponsorship now that the $100,000 payment has been blocked. Employers need to consider when a petition will be filed, whether it will be cap-subject and how a future fee change could affect the commercial viability of the hire.
Where recruitment commitments are being made months in advance, costs should be assessed against the requirements currently in force, with contingency planning for possible regulatory changes.
The court decisions have changed the immediate filing position, but they have not established a settled long-term cost framework for H-1B sponsorship.
Need Assistance?
NNU Immigration advises US employers and international workers on H-1B visa applications, sponsorship requirements and changes affecting employment-based immigration.
For advice on how the court rulings or proposed fee changes may affect your recruitment plans or H-1B application, book a fixed-fee telephone consultation with one of our US immigration attorneys.
