Massachusetts Federal Court Ruling Applies Nationwide - Practical Changes H-1B Applicants and Employers Need to Know
On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Massachusetts Federal District Court issued a summary judgment fully nullifying the $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B (specialty occupation visa) petitions. The ruling's effect is immediately applicable nationwide. As of June 11, no stay of execution has been issued by a higher court. This is a decision with direct implications for both employers and visa applicants currently preparing petitions.
How was the $100,000 fee introduced?
“Presidential Proclamation No. 10973 imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions for foreign nationals outside the United States and for petitions processed via consular posts.”
The Trump administration signed Presidential Proclamation No. 10973 on September 19, 2025, which took effect on September 21. The proclamation established a fee of $100,000 per H-1B petition. This was a unilateral action taken by the executive branch without going through the legislative process of Congress.
This amount applies to new petitions filed for aliens abroad and petitions undergoing consular processing (the procedure for obtaining a visa at an overseas U.S. consulate). Extensions and amendments for H-1B workers already in the United States are, in principle, excluded from this application.
Considering that the total of existing statutory fees is usually in the thousands of dollars, $100,000 was tens of times that amount. It was immediately pointed out that H-1B utilization would become virtually impossible for small to medium-sized employers, non-profit research institutions, and universities. On December 12, 2025, a coalition of 20 states, jointly led by California and Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment to invalidate this fee (State of California et al. v. Noem, U.S. District Court for Massachusetts).
Following the implementation of the travel ban, several changes have been observed in practice. Some companies have reportedly postponed the U.S. entry dates for employees residing abroad or added internal review procedures. Although the travel ban included a national interest exemption (a procedure to exclude individuals meeting specific conditions from the fee imposition), the process of applying for this exemption itself has reportedly created an additional administrative burden.
Two reasons that the court invalidated
“When you look at the substance and application of this $100,000 payment, it reveals itself to be a tax.”
Judge Sorokin vacated the entire fee award on two independent legal grounds.
First, it infringes upon the constitutional taxing power. The court ruled that while the fee is *called* a ‘fee,’ it is in substance a tax. Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to impose taxes rests solely with Congress. The government argued that it had the authority to impose the fee based on provisions such as Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, the court found that no part of that section delegates the authority for the executive branch to unilaterally establish fees of this magnitude. The conclusion is that the executive branch independently imposing an amount equivalent to a tax without congressional authorization violates the Constitution.
Second, there is a violation of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act—a law that dictates the procedures federal agencies must follow when creating and enforcing rules). This fee went into effect immediately without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. The court found that because this was considered a ‘legislative rule" with substantive content, it should have gone through the procedures outlined in Section 553 of the APA. Therefore, putting it into effect immediately without following those procedures is a violation of the APA.
The two grounds independently justify vacatur. The Court's position is that either one alone is sufficient to vacate the entire fee. Because it has been vacated through the vacatur mechanism under the APA, the ruling's effect extends nationwide, not just to the 20 states that brought the lawsuit.
Clash with D.C. Federal Court Ruling — Why This Issue Isn't Over Yet
“Two federal district courts have reached different conclusions on the same fee, and the appellate courts” decisions are pending.”
To understand this Massachusetts ruling, we need to look at the concurrent litigation.
In October 2025, the Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities (AAU) filed separate lawsuits in the D.C. federal court. On December 23 of the same year, the D.C. federal court ruled that the fee was constitutional and valid, directly contrary to the Massachusetts court's decision. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral arguments were held in March 2026. As of June 11, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to issue its ruling.
Faced with conflicting rulings from two federal district courts on the same fee, the Trump administration has formally announced its intention to appeal the Massachusetts ruling. The appeal could potentially go through the First Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
The core reason for the two courts reaching diametrically opposed conclusions lies in their differing interpretations of the same provision. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia viewed Section 212(f) of the INA as granting the president broad authority to restrict the entry of aliens. Based on this provision, the court interpreted the $100,000 fee as a form of entry condition. In contrast, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts focused on the magnitude of the fee and its practical effect, deeming it to be an effective tax rather than an entry condition. Thus, one court viewed the same provision as an exercise of broad executive power, while the other saw it as an infringement on congressional authority.
There is currently no stay of execution. The Massachusetts judgment remains in effect until the First Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court grants a stay of execution, and you will not need to post $100,000 for a new petition. However, if a stay of execution is granted during the appeals process, the fees may be reimposed. This is the most significant uncertainty of this ruling.
Immediate Practical Changes — Organizing by Situation
“The order to refund the $100,000 already paid is not included in this judgment.”
Employers preparing new petitions: For new H-1B petitions filed after the June 8th decision, there is no need to pay $100,000. Other existing statutory fees, such as the USCIS base fee, the anti-fraud fee, and the premium processing fee (I-907), will still apply. Please reconfirm the official USCIS announcement at the time of submission, as fee structures may change.
Applicants awaiting consular processing abroad: This ruling also applies to the consular processing path. The amounts that were levied on petitions filed to obtain an H-1B visa stamp at overseas consulates are also subject to cancellation. However, specific enforcement guidelines at the consulate will be separately announced by the Department of State. As the fees may be re-imposed if a stay of enforcement is granted by the appellate court, it is advisable to confirm the latest guidelines with your immigration specialist or attorney before departing the country.
Employer Who Has Already Paid $100,000: This decision order does not include an order for a refund of previously paid fees. USCIS has also not issued any official guidelines regarding refunds as of June 11th. Whether the previously paid amount can be refunded is a matter to be determined through subsequent litigation or administrative procedures, and is currently undecided. Please keep supporting documents such as payment receipts, copies of petitions, and relevant communication records in case a refund process is opened in the future.
If a petition has already been filed and is pending adjudication: USCIS will issue separate guidance on how it will handle petitions that have been filed, including those involving $100,000. Until separate guidance is issued, you should maintain the current status. There is no need to voluntarily withdraw or refile the petition unless you receive a notification requesting additional documentation or payment of additional fees.
Relationship to the Wage-Weighted Lottery: The wage-weighted lottery, first implemented for the FY2026-FY2027 H-1B registration, is a separate matter from this ruling. This system, which assigns a higher weighted chance of winning the lottery to higher wage levels, is currently in effect without a separate court injunction and is not affected by the ruling invalidating the fees.
Closing remarks
This ruling is not the final conclusion of the legal dispute surrounding H-1B fees. Appeals are ongoing, and the fee imposition situation could be reversed depending on whether an injunction is granted. The practical steps to take at this point are as follows.
First, employers who need to file new petitions can proceed without the $100,000 at this time, but coordinate filing schedules with an immigration attorney while monitoring whether a stay of enforcement will be granted in the appeal. If a stay of enforcement is granted, this amount can be restored immediately. Second, applicants who are facing consular processing abroad should check official guidance from the Department of State and the respective consulate before deciding on their departure schedule. Third, employers who have already made payments should keep all proof of prior payments and wait for USCIS to announce their refund guidelines. The final resolution of this lawsuit will be decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin Dong Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009
