A federal court has struck down the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement. On June 8, 2026, Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the charge is an unlawful tax and vacated it nationwide. The decision came in a lawsuit brought by twenty states against the federal officials who implemented the policy (California v. Mullin, No. 25-13829-LTS).

What the fee was

The requirement traces back to Proclamation 10973, signed on September 19, 2025, and effective two days later. It added a $100,000 payment on top of existing fees for new H-1B petitions. Before the proclamation, H-1B costs typically ran from roughly $1,000 to $7,600 in government fees. The new charge pushed the cost of a single petition past $100,000, which priced many smaller employers, universities, and hospitals out of the program.

Why the court struck it down

The core of the ruling is straightforward. The court found that the $100,000 payment is a tax, not a fee or a penalty. Under the Constitution, only Congress can impose taxes. The President can act in this area only if Congress clearly hands him that power, and the court held that it never did.

The government argued the payment fell within the President’s authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court disagreed. Those sections let the President impose restrictions, rules, and limits on entry. They say nothing about taxes. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, which rejected a similar tariff theory, the court concluded that broad language about restrictions does not quietly contain the power to tax.

The court added three independent violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The agencies skipped the required notice-and-comment process, acted beyond their statutory authority, and failed to give any reasoned explanation for a charge of this size, including its effect on the schools and healthcare systems that rely on H-1B workers.

The remedy: nationwide vacatur

The government asked the court to limit any relief to the states that sued. The court refused. It vacated the policy in its entirety, reasoning that vacatur sets aside the unlawful action itself rather than protecting specific parties. As of this order, the $100,000 requirement is off the table across the country, and the court issued a declaratory judgment confirming the policy is unlawful.

This is not the last word

Here is the part that matters for planning. The legal fight is not over. A different court in Washington, D.C. upheld the same fee in December 2025, and that case is already on appeal. The government can, and likely will, appeal this decision as well. Conflicting rulings at the district level tend to move toward the appellate courts and sometimes the Supreme Court. Treat the current status as a real but provisional win, not a settled rule.

What it means for self-petitioners

If your path is EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, or O-1, this ruling does not change the standards you are judged by. Those categories turn on your record and the national interest, not on H-1B fees. The Dhanasar framework for the National Interest Waiver and the Kazarian analysis for extraordinary ability are untouched here.

It still matters to you, for two reasons. First, many skilled professionals weigh employer-sponsored H-1B against a self-petition, and the $100,000 charge had been pushing people toward routes that do not depend on an employer. Second, this episode is a clear example of how quickly employer-dependent pathways can change. A self-petition puts control in your hands. You do not need a sponsor, and you are not exposed to fees aimed at employers.

If you have been weighing whether EB-1A or EB-2 NIW fits your profile, the case for building a petition you own, rather than relying on an employer’s budget and timing, is stronger today than it was last week.

What to do now

If you hold or were planning an H-1B, confirm current filing costs directly with USCIS before you act, since the situation can shift on appeal. If you are exploring self-petition options, focus on documenting your contributions and their impact in concrete, national-interest terms. That work holds its value regardless of how the H-1B litigation ends.

Not sure which pathway fits your background? Book a consultation and we will assess your profile and map out a strategy.

This post is for general information only and reflects the law as of June 8, 2026. It is not legal advice. Court decisions can be appealed and policies can change.