��������

Assume you are an employer that attracts talent and uses the H-1B visa to bring those “specialty occupations” to your workforce.

Assume that since September 21, 2025, the cost of hiring employees and using the H-1B visa went up $100,000 — because it did.

Assume that you did not know whether the $100,000 payment requirement would remain, and you did not know whether paying it made economic sense.

Assume you were waiting to see whether the $100,000 payment requirement would survive. 

And now we know. On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts vacated the $100,000 fee. At least for now, it is gone. . Here is how we arrived at this point.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a Proclamation adding a $100,000 “supplemental payment requirement to all H-1B petitions” to all new petitions filed on or after September 21,2025. A group of 20 states sued on December 12, 2025, alleging that because of the substantially increased cost of an H-1B visa, their ability to hire educators for their primary and secondary schools was harmed, university hiring and research was stymied, teacher shortages increased, and health care staffing would suffer. The parties agreed that the case should be decided on cross-motions for summary judgment (i.e., written submissions). In other words, each side would submit their legal position in writing and the court would decide, as a matter of law, which position to adopt.

Cutting to the chase, the court vacated the $100,000 payment requirement. The court made many procedural findings. While perhaps interesting, the court’s findings relevant to employers are as follows:

1. The plaintiffs were allowed to bring the case because the $100,000 H-1B payment negatively impacted their ability to staff public colleges, schools, and health care systems.
2. The president exceeded his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act because the $1000,000 payment requirement constituted a tax, not a penalty. Unless Congress delegates its authority, Congress has the exclusive power to tax. 
3. The $100,000 payment requirement “does not aim to establish that hiring H-1B workers is illegal.” Rather, employers “seeking to hire workers through the H-1B program face a new payment obligation that did not exist.” This was “final agency action” ripe for challenge.
4. The president and the agencies implementing the $100,000 payment failed to explain any need for the immediate implementation of the requirement.
5. The “heavy tax” on the H-1B program was “arbitrary and capricious.”

As it stands, the “[P]olicy materials implementing the Proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirements” are vacated.

Or are they?

On Friday, June 12, 2026, Judge Sorokin while Trump administration officials seek emergency appellate review. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates.